6/16/2008

My name is Marcy Tiffany. I have been married to Alex Kozinski for over thirty years and we have raised three sons together. First, let me thank you for making the effort to discover the truth about what happened, and for giving me an opportunity to respond to the stories that have been circulating about Alex.

Turning to the facts of the matter, the LA Times story, authored by Scott Glover, is riddled with half-truths, gross mischaracterizations and outright lies. One significant mischaracterization is that Alex was maintaining some kind of “website” to which he posted pornographic material.

Obviously, Glover’s use of the word “website” was intended to convey a false image of a carefully designed and maintained graphical interface, with text, pictures, sound and hyperlinks, such as businesses maintain or that individuals can set up on Facebook, rather than a bunch of random files located in one of many folders stored on our family’s file server. The “server” is actually just another home computer that sits next to my desk in our home office, and that we use to store files, perform back-ups, and route the Internet to the family network. It has no graphical interface, but if you know the precise location of a file, you can access it either from one of the home computers or remotely.

Using the term “website” also gives the impression that Alex was actively aware of all of the material, when, in fact, it had accumulated over a number of years and he didn’t even remember that some of that stuff had been stored there or whether it had been put there by him or one of our sons, who also have access to the server.

Glover also wrote that “the sexually explicit material on the site was extensive.” In fact, of the several hundred items in the “stuff” folder, the vast majority was cute, amusing, and not in the least bit sexual in nature. For example, there’s a program that lets you build a snowman (no private parts involved). There’s a “stress reliever” that lets you take a virtual hammer to your desktop (which I’ve been using a lot lately). There’s a picture of freshly painted double-yellow lines that go right over road kill, with the caption “not my job award.” There’s something called “cool juggle” that shows a video of a guy juggling who drops a ball outside the frame and becomes a stick figure when he goes to pick it up. There are over 300 individual items in the “stuff” folder, the vast majority of which are of this nature. In addition, this folder contains about a half-dozen items that, while humorous, also have some kind of sexual aspect. Most of these you have already identified on your website.

I would note that in addition to the “stuff” folder, which Alex and my sons used to store a hodge-podge of miscellaneous humorous items, we use to the server to store several dozen other folders that contain a lot of personal material. For example, there is a folder that has copies of papers my kids have written in school. There is another folder that has family photos. There is a folder that has copies of articles that Alex has written. Obviously, the advantage of using a server is so that we can access the material from other computers and also send family members and friends links that will allow them to see a specific item in a folder. For example, this allows me to send links to my sisters so that they can see the latest photo of our grandchild.

This brings us to another falsity in the LA Times article. The reporter describes the handful of comic-sexual items as follows: “the sexually explicit material on the site was extensive.” He then includes graphic descriptions that make the material sound like hard-core porn when, in fact, it is more accurately described as raunchy humor.

One especially egregious misrepresentation is that there was a “video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.” In subsequent articles, including one in the S.F. Chronicle, this has been described as a “bestiality” video. In fact, as you reveal on your Blog, it is a widely available video of a man trying to relieve himself a field when he is attacked by a donkey he fights off with one hand while trying to hold up his pants with the other. I would note that there is a version of this video on YouTube that apparently aired on the Fox channel. Crude and juvenile, for sure, but not by any stretch of the imagination is it bestiality. The fact is, Alex is not into porn – he is into funny – and sometimes funny has a sexual character.

The tiny percentage of the material that was sexual in nature was all of a humorous character. For example, the “women’s crotches” was one of the many “camel toe” series that is widely available on the net. The insidious effect of these misleading descriptions is that even many of those who have come to Alex’s defense have expressed the view that judges are entitled to look at “porn” if they choose, as if that’s what was really going on here, when it is not.

I think that there is another very important piece of this story that has not received the attention it deserves, and that is the role of Cyrus Sanai.

Cyrus Sanai, a disgruntled attorney/litigant, has widely claimed credit for engineering this smear campaign. In a 2005 decision, District Judge Zilly USDC Western District Seattle, describes Sanai’s conduct in a case before him as “an indescribable abuse of the legal process, unlike anything this Judge has experienced in more than 17 years on the bench and 26 years in private practice: outrageous, disrespectful, and in bad faith.”

Judge Zilly references a decision by LA Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Grimes where she describes Sanai’s conduct in a different lawsuit as follows: “Plaintiff has proliferated needless, baseless pleadings that now occupy about 15 volumes of Superior Court files, not to mention the numerous briefs submitted in the course of the forays into the Court of Appeal and attempts to get before the Supreme Court, and not one pleading appears to have had substantial merit. The genesis of this lawsuit, and the unwarranted grief and expense it has spawned, are an outrage.”

Washington State Superior Court Judge Joseph A. Thibodeau also had a run-in with Sanai, who harassed him to the point that he had to recuse himself from Sanai’s case. I believe you have a copy of the transcript of that hearing. (You may want to link to Overlawyered.com which has some additional details about how Sanai’s conduct).

Sanai wrote a vicious attack against the Ninth Circuit panel (Judges Leavy, Gould and Clifton) that ruled against his efforts to get the federal court to take jurisdiction over his parents’ ugly divorce case. You can read his vitriol at www.ninthcircuit.us (a website obviously designed so that people trying to find the Ninth Circuit website would stumble on his page instead).

Alex, who did not participate in the decision, wrote a public defense of the panel, and thus made himself a target. Sanai apparently made it his mission to retaliate against Alex. He managed to access our private computer and copy these files, which he then shopped around to reporters for months. Finally, he got the LA Times reporter to print the story that set off this firestorm. Sanai not only admits his involvement in all this – he brags about it.

As to how Sanai accessed our server and was able to rummage through our personal files, frankly we are still trying figure it out. Apparently, if a person is able to find a link to an item in the “stuff” file, and he knows what he is doing, it is possible for him to reverse engineer his way into other items stored in that file without our knowledge or consent. Although we typically would only send links to friends and family – who would be unlikely to do such a thing and who would certainly not try to injure us with what they found if they did – it is possible that a link to something in the “stuff” file became public, and Sanai used it to access the other material stored there. Moreover, since there wasn’t anything that remotely resembles a “collection of porn” stored there, we didn’t pay as much attention to the security risks as we obviously should have.

This is a sad and dangerous lesson to anyone who dares to stand on principle and publicly speak out against people like Cyrus Sanai, who are willing to stop at nothing to wreak his petty vengeance on a good and decent man like my husband. It is even more disturbing that Sanai, who is a member of the bar and an officer of the court, can get away with attacking judge after judge after judge, in this fashion.

It is also an indictment of Scott Glover and the LA Times, who are willing to knowingly distort the facts and with cavalier disregard of the injury they are causing to the reputation of a brilliant and distinguished jurist, in order to sell a few newspapers. And then, of course, there are the bevy of other purportedly respectable publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle, that are willing to repeat Mr. Glover’s story, while adding embellishments and further mischaracterizations along the way. This is apparently what now substitutes for responsible journalism.

While I’m on the topic of responsible journalism, it has recently come to light that the LA Times learned about this material months ago, and sat on it until it would do the maximum damage. Selecting the jury was a very grueling undertaking. Over 150 potential jurors were screened for hour after painful hour on Monday and Tuesday. Scores of men and women took the trip into the jury box, only to leave soon thereafter because they confessed themselves unable to view the materials. A number of others disclosed embarrassing facts about themselves and their families in order to explain why they could not sit on this jury. It was a difficult and painful process for just about everyone who was called into the jury box. Finally, after considering 109 members of the panel, a jury was selected and sworn at the end of the day on Tuesday. And Glover was present in court while all this was going on, biding his time. Only on Wednesday, after the jury had started to hear the case – and jeopardy had attached – did the LA Times choose to “break” its story.

A newspaper – especially a major newspaper as the Los Angeles Times purports to be – is supposed to be a responsible member of the community, not a predator. If the presence of certain files on a judge’s computer is a truly a newsworthy matter, it would have been so months earlier, before Alex was assigned this trial, and certainly a few days earlier, before a jury had been chosen and the trial had commenced. But what excuse is there for timing the story with surgical precision so as to do maximum damage to the judicial process? In doing so, the LA Times caused the effort of the court, the parties and the 150 citizens who answered the call of duty by reporting for jury service from near and far to go to waste, just to make a big splash. This strikes me as worse than irresponsible.

On the brighter side, once again, it is the bloggers such as you, who are willing to look behind the story to discover the real facts. One can only hope that through these efforts, the truth will eventually come out.

Marcy J.K. Tiffany, Esq.

Ms. Tiffany sent me an earlier version of this e-mail Saturday morning. It was she who confirmed for me that the “video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal” (to quote the L.A. Times description) was really the silly YouTube video of a man running away from an aroused donkey.

When I received her e-mail, I asked her whether she had intended for me to publish it. (I don’t want to publish anything that was intended as a private communication, so if there’s any doubt, I ask. That’s how I’d like to be treated, so it’s how I treat others.) We have since spoken about the matter twice on the phone. On Sunday night, she sent me a more polished and up-to-date version, which she authorized me to publish.

I am pleased to give Ms. Tiffany this forum to express her thoughts.

P.S. The partial transcript of the hearing involving Judge Thibodeau may be viewed here. The Overlawyered.com posts with more about Mr. Sanai, referred to in Ms. Tiffany’s e-mail, can be accessed here and here.

UPDATE x2: If you’re interested in seeing some of the content that was actually on Judge Kozinski’s server/site, click here. Also, if you’re interested, you can read my thoughts about whether this was a legitimate story here.

326 Responses to “Alex Kozinski’s Wife Speaks Out”

Sanai proves to the world that Kozinski is like everyone else and laughs at funny stuff. Nothing on the website was out of bounds for someone to have on their personal server, even if some of it was lame or in poor taste. Sanai also proves that Sanai is a complete monster, and a disgrace to the bar. But then, there are always a few monsters crawling around. This is as high in the world as he will ever get… a parasite bitterly harassing a giant in the legal world.

What’s surprising is that the monster got an audience. The LA Times must explain its behavior.

To recap for people who come to this page without the background discussion, simply as a point of information, the statement “it is possible for him to reverse engineer his way into other items stored in that file without our knowledge or consent” may be literally true and represent her understanding, but it is not a good description of the situation. In fact, Kozinski made a file link public, and the Yahoo search engine indexes directories from file paths, so any connotation that there was some extraordinary technical feat here, is not accurate.

Note I agree that the reporter distorted the nature of the material itself.

Wow. The Misses is defending her psycho husband and her demented son — I don’t think a picture of a guy dressed as a priest with a CHILD giving him oral sex is “acceptable humor”. How is that funny? How is it acceptable, even in the disgusting slime capital of San Francisco? His wife thinks this is cute? There are thousands of victims of pedophiles who will fail to see the humor, and the overwhelming majority of US citizens will be disgusted that a JUDGE,his liberal wife and his creepy son think this makes for family fun time. Finally,the LA Times does its job and exposes a California nutjob, and people are mad at the LA Times? I tell the Misses, the Judge, and junior to get some therapy, spend some time with victims of crime. and to get a $%^&& life.

Ms. Tiffany makes an interesting statement about the LATimes’s motives: “While I’m on the topic of responsible journalism, it has recently come to light that the LA Times learned about this material months ago, and sat on it until it would do the maximum damage.”

I’m wondering how she knows this as fact. Is she just “cavorting” with some of the facts, and maybe finding “bestility” in news judgment by professionals that really isn’t there?

The thought comes unbidden that such men, as Glover and Sanai have been described to be, would restrain themselves better, if they had seen from some previous, spectacular example that one endangers ones life through such unrestraint.

Ms. Tiffany makes an interesting statement about the LATimes’s motives: “While I’m on the topic of responsible journalism, it has recently come to light that the LA Times learned about this material months ago, and sat on it until it would do the maximum damage.”

I’m wondering how she knows this as fact. Is she just “cavorting” with some of the facts, and maybe finding “bestility” in news judgment by professionals that really isn’t there?

She is right.

Cyrus Sanai told Howard Bashman: “I pitched it to the Daily Journal, the Recorder, the LA Times and the WSJ through end of January 2008.” He pitched it to Henry Weinstein, who later took a buyout.

For what it’s worth, Sanai tells me that Weinstein never seemed particularly interested — and that Glover said that he hadn’t known about it from Weinstein.

Because it mocks a large, very public institution that while generally known for good deeds got into “a bit” of trouble over a minority (a vastly tiny minority, mind you) of members who liked to use their position of authority to diddle little boys…

Comedy is pain, kid.

There are thousands of victims of pedophiles who will fail to see the humor, and the overwhelming majority of US citizens will be disgusted that a JUDGE,his liberal wife and his creepy son think this makes for family fun time.

Seth has it right: While the LA Times grossly distorted what Kozinski had on his Web site, the notion of it being private or there being an expectation of privacy is illogical. If you want something to be truly private, don’t put it on a network designed to be accessible around the world. (Or at least password-protect it).

I couldn’t agree with Karen more. Good grief. Who ARE these people? They see these things as “funny” and give full access to it to their children and actually use that as a defense???

Then seeing the personal story of harrassment that anon wrote about doesn’t surprise me at all. This is the behavior of men like this. I feel sorry for this woman. She justifies what I would be horrified by.

One can judge the veracity of the allegation a few posts above by noting that the poster identifies him or herself as “anon.” I’ve been posting here as “Brian,” which is just as anonymous as “anon,” but you can bet that if I had some factual charge to make against someone that was based upon information that wasn’t already public, I’d damn well make my name public.

I wonder what the IP address of “anon” is? Or did he/she post this defamation from Kinko’s?

Mr. Patterico,
When you say “she’s right” about the LATimes having the info and sitting on it for months until, as she put it, “it would do the maximum damage,” do you mean you agree with what I’m reading in her missive: that the newspaper’s editors deliberately withheld the story until they saw, aha, here’s where we can inflict the most damage.

I don’t doubt Sanai gave the information to someone at the newspaper many months ago. But you and Ms. Tiffany are making a leap of logic from that point.
Perhaps Sanai simply saw in the newspaper recently that Kozinski was presiding over an obscenity trial and approached someone else at the newspaper, someone who now could see there was a story there and moved on it.
I don’t know if that’s how it played out, but from the skimpy facts we have as far as the newspaper is concerned, it’s as plausibile as the different inference you and Ms. Tiffany have taken as gospel.

Me, I don’t know. That’s why I asked how she, and now you, determined the newspaper’s motives.

I can tell you one huge criteria for what is news: irony; e.g. a judge presiding over an obscenity trial makes publicly available sexually explicit photos and videos that strike some reasonable people as offensive. Of course, only a jury from the community decides what sexually explicit materials go so far as to be obscene, which is what was about to take place in Los Angeles last week.

My brother went to law school with Alex Kozinski. And he had a rough and controversial sense of humor then. I’m not surprised that his sense of humor has not changed. It’s not my sense of humor. But I have learned that many good people differ from my own perceptions of “jokes.”

But I would venture a guess that people tend to forgive “Person A” of bad taste if they like “Person A,” and then attack “Person B” horrifically for the same “crime”—if they don’t like “Person B.”

Too often, it is about partisan politics. Or vindictiveness.

Should Judge Kozinski have controlled access to that server? Yep. Is the material on that server a good reason for a mistrial? Maybe. Do we really and truly want to start down this road on the personal lives of public figures? Heck, I remember the Clarence Thomas mess. Many people attacked Judge Thomas for his supposed video rental history, or “dirty jokes” based on hearsay. Yet those same people waved off Bill Clinton’s antics in the White House. The difference, as far too often nowadays, is politics.

I think that the best rule of thumb is this one: imagine the rule or judgement you wish to apply in the hands of your bitterest and most venal enemy. Because that is what will happen.

I’m also disturbed by the “anon” post above. If someone has harassed another person—FILE THE COMPLAINT. Talking about it later, without proof, just attracts false accusers, and gives them freedom to besmirch the reputations of others with impunity.

Of course, only a jury from the community decides what sexually explicit materials go so far as to be obscene, which is what was about to take place in Los Angeles last week.

If there was one judge who would have looked deeply into the theory that a local jury satisfy’s Miller’s “community standards” test in an otherwise entirely federal case, it would have been Kozinski. Too bad.

It’s disgusting (but not surprising) that a ‘serial plaintiff’ like Sanai and a leftist rag like the LA Times would time this hit piece to do maximum damage.

HOWEVER – if you are in a position of authority where ethical behavior is expected – judge, teacher, day care supervisor, etc. – you should have more brains than to store your private “raunchy material” in a place NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, especially if you A) are in a position to rule on a case which deals with pornography in any way, and B) generate enemies in your line of work.

To store these materials of “questionable taste” on a server accessible to the public is simply stupid.

Look, I’ve got stuff on my hard drive I wouldn’t exactly want my mom, my employer, or my local TV station to know I have. I’m guessing anyone reading this sentence does, too. That’s why right now at my house, my computer is off, my server is password-protected, and my son won’t be allowed unsupervised access to the internet until he has a drivers license.

Right on, Ms. Tiffany: this liberal’s on your, and A.K.’s side on this one.

Anon: so, why’d you persuade your girlfriend NOT to make a complaint?

Karen: “I don’t think a picture of a guy dressed as a priest with a CHILD giving him oral sex is “acceptable humor”. How is that funny?”
Ask the major networks; evidently someone else thinks the same joke is funny (30 seconds ofinternet research yields the following compilation; I’m betting cable shows would yield WAY raunchier stuff):

“The U.S. Cardinals said they are going to develop a code of ethics to help them deal with the sexual scandal. Wait a minute, I thought their already was a code of ethics, it’s called the Bible.” —Jay Leno

“I read this in the paper this morning: New York City has a priest shortage. So you see, there is some good news in the world. … To give you an idea how bad it is, earlier today in Brooklyn an alter boy had to grope himself.” —David Letterman

“As you’ve probably heard, the Pope has asked all the Cardinals to return to Rome. You know how they got them all to come back? They told them that there was going to be a performance by the Vienna Boys Choir.” —Jay Leno

“The Cardinals will be staying at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, the new hotel at the Vatican, where turn down service means the bell boy isn’t interested.” —Daily Show host Jon Stewart

“They say (the Pledge of Allegiance) violates the separation of church and state. How about the separation of church and altar boy? That’s what I’m worried about.” —Jay Leno

“Cardinal Law had difficulty with his memory under oath today. He could only remember three commandments. Under oath, Cardinal Law said ‘I do not recall’ 43 times. I’m telling you, this guy is presidential material.” —David Letterman

“The House Transportation Committee is now considering a bill that would allow pilots to carry guns for protection. I’ve got a better idea, why not give guns to altar boys, give them a fighting chance.” —Jay Leno

“In Boston, it looks like Cardinal Bernard Law isn’t going to be punished. It turns out he’s getting transferred to Rome, which is kind of like a promotion. He said today he wanted to thank all the little people.” —Jay Leno

“The Catholic Church is finally cracking down. Here’s the deal now: if a priest is transferred to another parish, he cannot take his live-in boyfriend.” —David Letterman

“The Catholic Church has just opened a new $2 million cathedral in Los Angeles. They really spared no expense. Each confessional has a panic button in it.” —David Letterman

“Isn’t it crazy with all these church scandals? I’m beginning to understand how all those Bibles ended up in hotel rooms.” —Jay Leno

“This week hundreds of bishops arrived in Dallas for their annual convention. You know what that means? Party. Party. Party. A couple of bellboys are being carried over the threshold tonight.” —Jay Leno

“There is a big conference of Catholic Bishops in Dallas. Well this is great for the city, it brings in about $12 million in hush money.” —David Letterman

“The Supreme Court ruled today that virtual child pornography is legal. Finally, some good news for the church.” —Jay Leno

“Bush said we’re going after white-collar criminals and I’m thinking ‘Gee I wish the Catholic church would do that.’” —David Letterman

“Kids, if you see an ad that says Cardinals looking for a bat boy, watch out, that has nothing to do with the baseball team.” —Jay Leno

I’m sure there will be plenty like you who claim to have evidence about Kozinski but have nothing to back it up. All you’ve proven is that you are either tolerant of sexual harassment or a liar. I could just as easily accuse you of crimes here, and my accusations would be just as credible.

Karen, the idea that it’s as horrible as you claim to have videos that so far are all turning out to be not that bad at all (despite the apparent lies of Cyrus and the LA Times) is a stupid idea. You’re the kind of fool that Cyrus was hoping to dupe. Oh no! Naked people!

Fact is, you’re the offensive person for demanding that everyone subscribe to your bizarre view of what is and isn’t allowed in our private lived.

“Anon: so, why’d you persuade your girlfriend NOT to make a complaint?”

What would the nature of the complaint have been in any event? Was there any supervisor/subordinate relationship or teacher/student relationship between the judge and your girlfriend? Did your girlfriend ask the judge to stop the unwanted behavior? Discovering a lot of women with similar stories makes it sound like you could have made quite a splash with
a omplaint. Cyrus Sanai is going to want to have a conversation with you, dude.

I don’t know about anyone else but I am freaking out about “jokes” that people send to me that I don’t have time to look at so I foward them to my home email. I haven’t a clue what is on most of these things. Good thing I am unimportant and will never run for anything.

Maintaining any materials that could be construed as pornographic, on a workplace website, is at the very least…bad judgment…..which calls into question his fitness for the bench. Like it or not, society holds the Judiciary to a higher standard than regular citizens who aren’t living off the tax-payers.

Oh and the picture of the woman with a man penetrating her is funny how?, maybe it is fine art?, how would Tiffany describe that one. What about a strip show of an aroused transsexual, I am not sure what is funny about that and putting it online is hardly the actions of an innocent person, not very ‘family values’.

The bottom line is the judge has a collection of inappropriate images that are available online and is unfit to judge a trial about pornography.

Oh and the picture of the woman with a man penetrating her is funny how?, maybe it is fine art?, how would Tiffany describe that one. What about a strip show of an aroused transsexual, I am not sure what is funny about that and putting it online is hardly the actions of an innocent person, not very ‘family values’.

Have you seen the material? The tranny stuff is a flash game. It’s tacky, yes. I don’t think it’s that funny. But it’s definitely humor, not porn. It’s not, as described in the media, a pornographic slideshow of a striptease.

Name one of those “Taxpayer supported Judges” that was censured or sanctioned. I highly doubt that unsupported statement and would really like to see you back it up.

Maintaining any materials that could be construed as pornographic, on a workplace website, is at the very least…bad judgment…..which calls into question his fitness for the bench. Like it or not, society holds the Judiciary to a higher standard than regular citizens who aren’t living off the tax-payers.

Just because things are in poor taste (and most of what I saw wouldn’t even qualify as that, only crude humor) doesn’t make them pornographic. Also, it wasn’t a workplace website, it was a home server… not even an online storage service, but an extra PC set up to host some files.

To the posters who are outraged that Kozinski would make raunchy material public: By his wife’s own statements, it doesn’t appear as though anyone in that family knew the information was accessible to the public. There are a lot of people out there who just aren’t tech-savvy enough to know how to password-protect their servers. For example, I live in the suburbs and, if I wanted to, I can access up to 15 unprotected wireless networks that my neighbors haven’t figured out how to secure.

This story is just making a mountain out of a molehill. There’s no impropriety here.

Joe Bingham you try to spin it anyway you want but a photo of a man penetrating a woman is pornographic, whether it is game or not an aroused transsexual is not funny (unless you are a pervert).

You can excuse his behaviour all you want and maybe this kind of material is fine with you but for many many people it is unacceptable and is hypocritical for a law and order, family values conservative judge to posses and disseminate.

Brava, Ms. Tiffany! Thank you for the beautifully written defence of your husband. He ought not be defended merely by his brilliant jurisprudence, but upon his character as well.

Sending the wife out to make a defense is pretty weak stuff.

No, it’s the strongest defence there is. The woman who has been married to him for three decades is the best person to defend Judge Kozinski’s character, especially when the charges leveled against him are those of misogyny and having porn fetishes.

Fer crissake, would people just unwad their panties and grow up?

ROFL.

They see these things as “funny” and give full access to it to their children and actually use that as a defense???

Ya know, my dad will sometimes make jokes about “family bondage” as opposed to “family bonding.” I guess he’s a demented jerk who doesn’t belong near children…?

Daniel – Does Kozinski bill himself as a family values conservative judge?

I keep hearing him described as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and a libertarian, which would make this content no big deal.

Also, do you have any evidence that he was disseminating the “porn”? The wife clearly says it was private. No one has said they found a link to any of the porn from the internet, that was only done by searching the site once they were on it. Read the background more closely.

She ain’t no Silda Spitzer, so she’s gotta roll up her sleeves, take to the airwaves, write letters…before her standard of living completely evaporates.

Because there’s no other possible motivation for her to defend her husband… because she has to know that he’s an unethical degenerate, one step removed from the people who appear in his court, right? It’s clear you’ve made up your mind and nothing about the judge is defensible in your eyes. I hope you’re never attacked unfairly, although you might learn a bit more about what the MSM and dishonorable people are truly like. For now, I’ll take your words for what they’re worth (read that as you will).

Anyone who is trying to debate the character of a judge with his family based off of no fact but the supposed AP press (these personal abuse bullcrap stories which I guarantee were all posted under the same IP – whoops!)

If someone really had a story like that, they’d post it registered with a way for someone to verify and sue…since especially you’d make money now. Too bad they don’t realize that if the judge decides to prosecute them by identifying the IP of an anonymous comment, they can do that. This equivalent to “your husband rubbed against my girlfriend” is a form of slander that he could actually take the anon poster to court about. Would it be worth it to do so though? No, unfortunately.

The person who tried to say “this guy is like all men” is someone full of misandry….aka misogyny but a woman doing it to a man. I hope that person learns to be a real person, but then again its probably the same poster as the one before it about the “oh, he was a manwhore to my girlfriend” speech. Honestly, you think someone’s going to do something like that at a public event? A smart judge is going to be an ass in public? Just throwing this out there, but I’d guess the chance of that is about between 0, and being struck by lighting while indoors and underground.

I bet there are a grand total of 2 or 3 people posting these slanderous story of her husband, all from different anonymous names. It’s not like the comments are just magically in a row from eachother and all from anon names, now is it?

Best regards to Judge Kozinski and his family – I’ve followed his judiciary experience from here in Reno, Nevada, and he’s always struck me as a man who loves his country and defends the Constitutional rights of others. It’s a breath of fresh air to see that at least one website will reciprocate.

On a related note, how does this slimeball Sanai keep on getting away with his smear campaigns? Are there any litigious options available to Judge Kozinski?

On my computer I have pictures of my one-year granddaughter taking a bath…naked! I have a picture of my daughter being licked on the nose…by her dog! I have a cache of jokes…some off-color and of a sexual content stored in various files. If I was a teacher, judge or minister and someone hacked into my computer I could easily be accused of being a pervert. Fortunately i am just an old lady who likes to look at pictures of my family and laugh at silly jokes.

This is a fantastic example of how distorted truths can have severe repercussions on certain people. I will not lie, when I read the original LA times article, They made this judge out to be a dirty minded-porn addict. And they did it quite effectively. Perhaps this is a lesson for all of us, to never trust any source of information, no matter how credible it claims to be. Everyone has a motivation, and clearly truth and justice were not the motivations of Cyrus Sanai or the author of the LA TIMES article. If it is discovered, and im assuming it must be pretty evident, that the author knowingly printed these misleading remarks, he should be fired immediatly. Makes me think that journalists should have to undergo some ethical training, and be licensed to report the news. If only to ensure a means of retaliation when they commit such horrid acts. There was a time when journalism, was seen almost in a romantic sense, as being a defender of truth. Unfortunately, todays journalism, has devolved into a game of simply making the most absurd eye catching headline, regardless of who it may unfairly portray. If US news sources continue to go down this path, it will not be long before Americans will be forced to go to outside sources for information. I.E BBC or Reuters. However this may also lead to a greater interest in internet reporting. With the internet we are able to view various different news sources covering the same topic, which can give us a better idea of the truth. Any one source can have particular biases that alter the truth, but whne all read together, we can often see the picture more clearly. Perhaps this is the direction the American Media is headed.

Your home is private, yes? But how can that be, when it’s on a public street?

Jim, if I had a garage sale, put up signs around the neighborhood with my address, then didn’t take the signs down and left the garage door open, should I be shocked if someone walked in to the garage?

They seem to be saying “we invited some people in some of the time and didn’t lock the door, but I can’t believe everybody doesn’t understand this is PRIVATE!”

CKSewell you may have a naked photo of your granddaughter and of course there is nothing the matter with that. However the judge had a photo for example of young man performing fellatio on himself. Unless your granddaughter is involved in some sexual act or used for sexual gratification there is NO comparison at all. One is a harmless photo of a relative and the other is pornographic image.

marcy tiffany said it wasn’t a website. hold it right there. if it has its own url (alexkozinski.com) and it’s on the web, it is, indeed, a website as i understand that term to mesn.

look at this vile cyrus sanai! yeah, but personal vendettas are frequently waged and suffered by judges and lawyers. she’s got a backstory, so does mr. sanai. everybody has a tale of woe that would bring tears to the eyes of a sphinx. all that matters is the moment, and in this moment mr. sanai has clearly scored…something. i’m not sure whether to call it a touchdown or a field goal or how many points to award it.

look at this vile journalist! he waited until jeopardy had attached! there oughta be a law!

ok marcy tiffany, tell us about the young man sucking his own dick. pornography or humor? in an internet full of goatse, tubgirl and lemonparty, images must get more and more…unusual…i don’t want to say depraved here because that would be judgmental, but there’s obviously two schools of thought on the subject.

ms. tiffany, tell us about the naked women painted as cows. degrading to women, or not? if you say not, please favor us with a picture of yourself naked on all fours, painted like a cow, so we can all go moo and have a good, harmless laugh.

blah, blah, blah. bottom line, secure your fricking system already! until you learn how to do that, better pull the damn plug right outta the wall.

“Oh and the picture of the woman with a man penetrating her is funny how?, maybe it is fine art?, how would Tiffany describe that one. What about a strip show of an aroused transsexual, I am not sure what is funny about that and putting it online is hardly the actions of an innocent person, not very ‘family values’.

The bottom line is the judge has a collection of inappropriate images that are available online and is unfit to judge a trial about pornography.” -Daniel

Came across this at Fark-I briefly remembered the LA Times story, and thought to myself “another public figure caught with his pants down”. Now I read this rejoinder,and have sympathy for the people who are the victims of this smear campaign. Shame on the Times for not corroborating this story and also not considering the source. That alone would be a red flag for any responsible journalist. Imagine the reactions of people who haven’t seen this-the innuendo will live on long after the story dies!

Judge Kozinski is obviously using his wife to represent him, and the strategy she employs, like her husband, is misdirection and dishonesty.

I’m going to address only two points now

First is the quotation from Judge Elizabeth Grimes. She did say those things, and it was quoted, by the Court of Appeal in an unpublished opinion reversing every ruling she made, as grounds for tossing her off the case for misconduct. The exact quotation, which Judge Zilly and Mrs. Kozinski refuse to reveal, is as follows:

“In making its fee award the trial court commented, “Plaintiff has
proliferated needless, baseless pleadings that now occupy about 15 volumes of Superior Court files, not to mention the numerous briefs submitted in the course of the forays into
the Court of Appeal and attempts to get before the Supreme Court, and not one pleading appears to have had substantial merit. The genesis of this lawsuit, and the unwarranted
grief and expense it has spawned, are an outrage.”
We agree in these circumstances the interests of justice are best served by having all further proceedings heard by a different trial judge. (§ 170.1, subd. (c).)”

Disqualification under 170.1 is for misconduct or bias.

So in the case before Judge Grimes, the Court of Appeal quotes her language as grounds for tossing her. The underlying fact is that I won the appeal and got her removed for saying this; but in the underlying case as to which Judge Kozinski committed misconduct, and now his defense through her wife, Judge Kozinski commits the same kind of blatant dishonesty which has gotten him into trouble.

Second, and I will keep beating this drum unti the cows–or women dressed as cows–come home: what about Terry Carter’s article about the mp3s? Mrs. Kozinski knows how I found the directory–it was the mp3s they uploaded and file shared. She nitpicks about the LA Times article, but cannot address his more serious problem, because on that, there is no defense.

I’m taking the author at her word for the description of events, but if even half of what she’s said is true, this is one of the most disgusting abuses of journalism I’ve ever read.

It is absolutely abhorrent to me that a conniving, malicious, indignant person can find such willing complicity in character assassination in the press. Journalists are supposed to investigate and report on matters of the breach of public trust, and issues of importance that shape the day.

No such breach of public trust exists, no such matter. It is a fabricated story, a vicious seed planted by a vengeful scoundrel, and watered, fed and grown with premeditated malice by greedy, opportunistic shams who are parading themselves as serious journalists.

I believe vehemently in our first amendment right to freedom of the press, but in that freedom, we the people place our trust, our faith in those who we’ve tasked the duty of reporting the news to us. This craven act breaks that trust in one of the most egregious manners possible, and vilifies a man who has made a career of being a prudent and respectable jurist, for no reason other than personal spite and outright moneylust.

As the people supposedly serviced by these journalists, it is our charge, our duty to demand they make right this breach of trust, this breach of decency, or else we all become implicit in this villainy.

Jim, if I had a garage sale, put up signs around the neighborhood with my address, then didn’t take the signs down and left the garage door open, should I be shocked if someone walked in to the garage?

These analogies, mapping internet concepts to physical concepts, just don’t work. Things like opening a garage door and hanging a shingle are visible and physical, and are some of the oldest ways of indicating that you want people to come by and look at what you have in there.

An internet server is not a physical thing, and doesn’t conform to the same rules of “visible” and “private” as physical things. The Kozinskis posted no signs, and as far as they knew, no one would be able to see it by doing the internet equivalent of driving by. They were mistaken in that belief, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t really and honestly expect it to be private.

As smart as Kozinski is, I have no trouble believing that he honestly thought his site was private. Either way, he certainly wasn’t advertising for people to come by.

Why should Federal Jurists have any more claims on the First Amendment than Officers of the Military ???

The Military Code of Conduct covers both in-uniform and out.

Anyone in the military found with pornography is subject to dishonorable discharge. I consider the Federal Judiciary a para-Miltary organization, and certainly someone holding that kind of position of trust, should be held accountable both on, and off, the bench.

Complaintants are generally limited to clients of the lawyer in question, or – in some cases – to fellow members of the bar; here, the California bar. And when a complaint is made, it should be specific to some disciplinary rule(s), and cite specific evidence. Spamming would be counter-productive.

Daniel – Does Kozinski bill himself as a family values conservative judge?”

I finally understood what this story was about when I heard the judge described as “conservative” and he was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I think it was foolish to leave that material open without password protection but I’m sure a lot of people do the same.

“In making its fee award the trial court commented, “Plaintiff has
proliferated needless, baseless pleadings that now occupy about 15 volumes of Superior Court files, not to mention the numerous briefs submitted in the course of the forays into
the Court of Appeal and attempts to get before the Supreme Court, and not one pleading appears to have had substantial merit. The genesis of this lawsuit, and the unwarranted
grief and expense it has spawned, are an outrage.”
We agree in these circumstances the interests of justice are best served by having all further proceedings heard by a different trial judge. (§ 170.1, subd. (c).)”

This was a dispute over his own apartment rent that Cyrus litigated for four years. The man is truly a piece of work.

OK Sanai, why don’t you post somewhere the complete texts of all the orders Ms. Tiffany is citing, so we can read them for ourselves and decide whether she’s misrepresenting them. No one in their right mind is going to take your word as to what really happened.

Someone beat the peanut gallery to it in terms of complaining about Judge Zilly’s cricisisms and Judge Grimes to the bar. The bar requested a response from me, and nothing is going on.

Obviously, if any of you fine people want to complain, I can’t stop you, but you will be required to submit facts and information, which none of you have. The bar does not act on complaints made by people with no actual knowledge, for obvious reasons.

The case law concerning CCP 170.1(c), which Ted Frank should be familiar with, says that reassignment under this statute is reserved solely for cases of bias or misconduct. If anyone can find a published case saying differently, bring it to my attention. Until someone does, I say that Ted Frank is just making it up.

Also, and let’s make this clear, I have not lost the case involving Judge Grimes, and I have not lost the matters previously before Judge Zilly. Everything is proceeding, and nothing is final. Which is, by the way, where Mrs. Kozinski has become an advocate for judicial misconduct.

And this leads me to an additional point about Mrs. Kozinski. She is defending and indeed advocate further judicial misconduct.

Judges don’t get to speak out on matters before their courts unless it is assigned to them, and then only through the opinion process (or in trial court judges, in open court at a noticed proceeding). Judge Kozinski and any other federal judge should be disciplined for attacking any attorney in the press, unless that case is before that judge and the criticisms are made through the opinion or hearing process. Judge Kozinski’s original article was misconduct, which he conceded, and he now appears to be using his wife to commit additional misconduct.

So to be clear: Judge Kozinski does not get to speak about about attorney misconduct unless the matter is assigned to him. He has to keep his mouth shut. Judges are not advocates, and by accepting a lifetime appointment, they lose many First Amendment rights, and must conform their public behavior to constrained norms. If he does not like that, he could always move to the private sector and start billing time or publishing academic articles.

Finally, I always knew that because the server was under Judge Kozinski’s control, any judicial misconduct complaint concerning it would, if not preceded by a press investigation, be dismissed after Kozinski destroyed the evidence. That’s what happened with my first complaint, as Patterico has shown in earlier posts.

What I did not know was that Yahoo search was indexing the site, so much of what was removed is still recorded.

But again, the porn is not the biggest sin in the cache. The file sharing of the MP3s is, and that was separately verified by the ABA Journal.

what does it mean to be disgruntled? is there a component of meaning separate from being displeased or angry at someone or something? i ask because i see it used more and more nowadays in an effort to marginalize a subject and shift the issue to being about the subject instead of some underlying controversy. unless there is some separate component of meaning i’ve missed, the use of “disgruntled” by ms. tiffany and others strikes me as manipulative.

If Judge Kozinski’s wife is a lawyer, she should know that it is improper to cite as authority a trial court decision that has been overruled by an Appellate Court.

The quotation from Judge Grime’s decision was specifically addressed by an Appellate court which reversed it:

“Finding Mr. Sanai had not brought this action in good faith,[see footnote 36] the trial court awarded UDR $136,034 in fees, 25 percent of the total fees sought by all defendants in their consolidated attorney fee motion, pursuant to Civil Code section 1785.31, subdivision (e). We reverse the award on two grounds.

Footnote36. The trial court commented: “Plaintiff has proliferated needless, baseless pleadings that now occupy about 15 volumes of Superior Court files, not to mention the numerous briefs submitted in the course of the forays into the Court of Appeal and attempts to get before the Supreme Court, and not one pleading appears to have had substantial merit. The genesis of this lawsuit, and the unwarranted grief and expense it has spawned, are an outrage.””

I know that the wife’s intention is just to throw mud at Cyrus Sanai and that she is not bound by the normal rules regarding citing authority when sending e-mail. But publicizing a trial court’s order that has been specifically reversed by a higher court points to some troubling ethical sloppiness.

Cyrus, you were just caught lying, not that anyone believed you. Bias is not always misconduct. And you have lost over and over, and just keep getting ancillary appeals that do not go to the factual matters (which you keep losing). Not to mention that you’re suing over tiny pointless crap.

Cyrus, did you or did you not upload these files onto Kozinski’s server?

We need a link to the matters on the Kozinski website so that we are not just stirred up by argument with no evidence. Also, re the LA Times, visiting Ms. Tiffany’s Website specialedlaw.org, which is on the State Bar’s website for her, there are a number of links to LA Times articles about her which Ms. Tiffany likes. Also, her’s is a business for fees, not apparently a nonprofit so why the “.org”? Thank you in advance for the information.

ADA, I think it’s pretty clear that he’s disgruntled based on his conduct in this thread alone, where he’s already tangled himself in some dishonest statements of fact and law.

frankfromfresno, you have an unusual writing pattern that only matches one other poster here… who happens to agree with you and also shares your strange paranoia about the intentions of everyone being out to get Cyrus.

And it’s not improper to cite a trial opinion if you’re not using it to justify the factual matter at trial but rather proving that Cyrus’s behavior has drawn the scorn of other respected jurists. She’s saying that a trail took place, for which her citation is obviously rock-solid. She’s not concerned with Cyrus’s apartments and his poor father.

jem, i think it’s pretty clear that he’s angry/displeased with judge kozinski based on his conduct in this thread alone, but i was asking about additional meaning, above and beyond anger/displeasure, inherent in “disgruntled”. my best guess is that there’s some additional symbolism along the lines of “he’s angry/displeased, so nobody has to take him seriously.” if this is so, my general advice would be not to disgruntle anybody when you have an unsecured family web server with embarrassing material on it.

– but i was asking about additional meaning, above and beyond anger/displeasure, inherent in “disgruntled” –

.

Unreasonably angry – or anger out of normal proportion to events. Getting angry at things that most people would shrug off as part of the normal friction of life. Holding a GRUDGE comes to mind. Chip on the shoulder.

Cyrus, did you or did you not upload these files onto Kozinski’s server?

I see this line becoming more and more popular by the judge’s defenders: that somehow Mr. Sanai uploaded the kid-fellating-himseld picture, the illegally-shared MP3 files, the aroused-donkey videos, etc. to the publically-accessible and popular-search-engine-indexed Kozinski web site.

But this accusation that Sanai (or anyone else) planted evidence doesn’t mesh well with Kozinksi’s original admissions that this was his material, and (now) his wife’s email defending the material.

It looks like the judge’s defenders are resorting to outlandishly dishonest scenarios — which started with the breathtakingly inaccurate “visiting his web site is like breaking into his house” excuse — in an effort to shift the spotlight away from the judge’s behavior.
(These misdirections and blame-the-messenger tactics echo those used originally by the the Obama-Wright and Clinton-Lewinski defenders, which makes me immediately suspicious of them.)

Jem: do you have any evidence to support this allegation that these files were planted on the judge’s web site, or are you just throwing around baseless slander?

ADA, your reasoning about teh intelligence Kozinski displayed in having that server is, of course, absolutely correct. There was nothing illegal about prying into it, and Koz should have known he’d have deranged enemies looking for anything they could find.

Shad, slander is spoken, Libel is typed, and I merely asked a very obvious question. This server, if you can break into his wifi router, would be easy to tamper with, and the state of california was unable to find documents that apparently are there now. Why would Koz delete them (Cyrus claims he destroyed evidence by deleting a file) and then put them back? Given Cyrus’s bizarre behavior, the most likely explanation is that Cyrus planted this stuff.

Shad, you’re either confused or deliberately blurring the issue. Cyrus has no legal claim about the sexual humor/porn/whatever. It’s utterly irrelevant. Kozinski and his wife are explaining that these files are pretty silly to get angry about, but I don’t know of any admission that the put them there. They all agree it’s possible. Why are you getting the facts mixed up?

frank, you clearly understand the point I’m making and are deliberately distorting it. Am I, too, another of the millions of lawyers out to ‘get’ you? Are you going to try to locate my server and find out what’s on them?

A trial took place and though an appeal was made, the fact that a judge was very angry with Cyrus (you), is absolutely obvious. It’s another of a litany of people who note that Cyrus is a deranged person.

Cyrus, you do realize that your case is not any closer to coming out your way, just because Kozinski may have porn? We’re interested int he topic, but it has nothing to do with your case. Your deranged behavior, as noted in decisions that have been overturned and others that have not, is just more evidence that your use as a source was irresponsible and you aren’t to be trusted. I don’t give a flip about your rent or the factual dispute at your trial that you lost… I only care that the judge was tired of your BS. Do you dispute that the judge was very aggravated or that the trial took place (the only facts asserted by Tiffany)?

An internet server is not a physical thing, and doesn’t conform to the same rules of “visible” and “private” as physical things. The Kozinskis posted no signs, and as far as they knew, no one would be able to see it by doing the internet equivalent of driving by. They were mistaken in that belief, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t really and honestly expect it to be private.

I don’t see how you can say that. From an earlier post:

One more point: Seth Finkelstein has shown that Kozinski knew that any member of the public could access his site — including his “stuff” subdirectory — as long as they knew the URL. In 2004, Kozinski nominated himself as part of a “Judicial Hottie Contest” on the Internet, and included a file of himself bungee jumping at http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/jump.avi.

Yes, it was one file, not the directory. But did he do anything special to the file to make it open to the public? No, all the files were already available to anyone who tried to get to them.

That doesn’t seem very private to me. More like leaving a door unlocked and hoping no one tries to turn the door knob.

Then there’s the whole MP3 file sharing. If he was doing that, then there’s just no way to claim it was supposed to be private. I don’t know if anyone has–or can–determine if he was sharing them on purpose or not.

Kozinski and his wife are explaining that these files are pretty silly to get angry about, but I don’t know of any admission that the put them there. They all agree it’s possible. Why are you getting the facts mixed up?

I guess I got the facts mixed up because I read this post here on Patterico’s site, where he quoted the Times as saying:

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as “funny.”

Grudges aren’t illegal, and I’m my own person, with no special rants, or litigation.

I have a website where I talk about nothing other than Mozart and other innocuous subjects.

However, I do take special pleasure in watching the mighty, (and their feet of clay), fall.

….especially Hypocrites who live in Palos Verdes. And, you can bet tongues are wagging all over the Penninsula. Neighbors who’ve long hated the Kozinskis, but havent had the nerve to say it to them up front….salivating over this delicious-ness!!!!

Shad, you don’t think it’s a reasonable question to ask a lunatic if he did something crazy?

Why? How is that slander (or libel)? I asked a very obvious and relevant question, and your laser focus on this seems to suggest you indeed may have tampered with Koz’s computer, since you’re unusually upset by it (I assume you’re Cyrus, though you of course may not be).

I will give you $1000 if you can note the specific statement I typed and prove it’s untrue. Obviously you can’t and you know that, because all you want to do is attack everyone defending Kozinski… because after all, we’re all out to get you, right?

by the way, you’re the one accusing me of a crime. If you can’t back it up, you’re not only a dullard, but you’re a hypocrite with absolutely no credibility here. so it’s time to pick a new sockpuppet.

I’m going to be gradually drawing my involvement in responding to comments to a close for a while, as an investigatory committee has been appointed by the Third Circuit on the instructions of Chief Justice Roberts.

The Committee will be the proper forum to air the facts and defenses. I will be requesting that the committee’s proceeding be treated as an open tribunal. I hope that everyone on this blog makes the same request.

I have nothing to fear about telling my story in public. It is a complicated one, involving several levels of judicial misconduct, the primary one being very different than what is under discussion here. However it is real, and it is provable.

Google will be putting up a statement about the underlying case that I have submitted at their requested. I’ll post the link once it is up.

Again, I hope that everyone who has commented will demand open transparent proceedings in front of the committee.

“I guess I got the facts mixed up because I read this post here on Patterico’s site, where he quoted the Times as saying:”

Shad, I dispute the accuracy of the quote that Kozinksi admitted posting all the material that is being discussed. Perhaps some of it, perhaps none of it, but unless you can provide a better link, I just don’t think you’re right. After all,t he Time shas also been caught lying.

Weiss, your glee is disgusting. And from what I’ve seen today, the cast majority of people paying attention are agreeing that Kozinski did nothing wrong. That’s hardly a fall at all.

Jem, my “laser focus” on this was to ask you if you had any evidence to support your accusation that someone else had planted these files on Kozinski’s web site, especially given his admission that he had put them there himself. You answered that you did not have any evidence, and I thanked you for your quick response.

You also asked where I got the idea that Kozinski had admitted he put the files on his web site, and I helpfully provided you a link to another post on this very site demonstrating that it was public knowledge that he had done so.

Finally, I have not accused you of any crime; dial down your paranoia.

frank, you clearly understand the point I’m making and are deliberately distorting it.

The only point I have been addressing is your absurd suggestion that a trial court opinion that has been reversed by an appellate court is “rock solid.” If you mean to say something else, you should choose your words more carefully.

A trial took place and though an appeal was made, the fact that a judge was very angry with Cyrus (you), is absolutely obvious.

Oh, so your point is that some trial judge was very angry with Mr. Sanai? Okay, so what? Has anyone ever been angry with you?

And, by the way, I ain’t Mr. Sanai and have never met him. You might want to pour yourself a soothing cup of tea and sit down and consider the fact that there may be more than one person on planet Earth with an internet connection who does not think exactly like you do.

Shad (Cyrus), you need ot pick a new sock-puppet. I asked Cyrus a yes or no question, and you replied that because you are certain the answer is no, that I’m a criminal slanderer for asking the question. Slander laws are, in fact, a limitation on free speech, especially the insanely broad definition you have, which apparently is that no one can dare challenge Cyrus.

You are a very foolish person if you think any intelligent person doesn’t see through your silly game. It’s not funny and you probably are going to have to find a new profession.

To put it plainly: accusing me of being a criminal for asking a question is akin to forfeiting your place at the discussion. So pick a new sockpuppet.

I think there are a couple of sock-puppets here, but I’m not sure if I’d posit a unified sock-puppet theory just yet, for starters because Maxine is just so stupid (not that the others are particularly brilliant.) So we have different personalities in any case, whether employed by the same puppeteer or not I’m not sure.

But there’s also another phenomenon going on here with these Kozinski-bashers (and I’m excluding those who merely say that Kozinski should have been more prudent in protecting his privacy): They’re the sort of malcontents who feel a kind of diffuse resentment of even hatred toward anyone in a position of esteem in the community, even when that position is earned. That hatred emerges full-force when an esteemed figure gets caught up in scandal, and the haters just don’t care about the quality of the evidence or the honesty of the accuser. The object of hate must simply be brought down, destroyed, to assuage the haters’ feelings of personal worthlessness.

So I see that kind of disgusting hatred here – hatred of one’s betters – and because there’s a real sub-culture of these kinds of freaks, I’m not sure each one of them is a sock-puppet.

dht, you need to read the thread instead of spouting off like that. Ok?

Tiffany asserted some basic and truthful facts about Cyrus and the opinion another judge had of him and the existence of a trial. Cyrus or his sockpuppet said that it was wrong to point out the trial that proves this, as the trial was overturned. This is ridiculous. All I was doing was pointing out it was ridiculous. I don’t need to prove that Cyrus is disrespectful of the legal process, a serial litigant, an obsessed loon, and someone who makes judges very irritated by his horrible conduct. That’s just obvious stuff, as far as I’m concerned, and anyone who doesn’t immediately grant that I am correct is probably a sock-puppet.

Cyrus’s case, of course, is irrelevant to the discussion beyond the fact that Cyrus would do anything to harm someone he thinks is in the way of his results. It’s not really important to look into his actual case.

Brian, you’re right. I doubt all the Kozinski opponents here are Cyrus. By reputation he works his clerks to the bone and many of my professors think he’s totally wrong, so I expect lots of people to laugh at his stupid behaivior.

But come on, dude… “shad” thinks I’m a criminal if I ask Cyrus a yes or no question, and the fresno guy types exactly like Cyrus. their posts are timed apart in such a way that it’s even more suspicious.

I don’t know who Shad is. It is not me. I don’t need to use sock puppets, since I am not looking for the roar of the masses in approval.

I will say that no one who posts anonymously has the right to accuse anyone of being a sock puppet. Anyone who wants to ask me a question, feel free to call me or email me directly. I will respond to anyone who identifies themselves with their real name and personal details (i.e. educational background, location and job). I note that trolls like daleyrocks and jem don’t have the guts to do this.

For clarification, I understand that Kozinski admitted putting up the specific items mentioned in the Times article, but I did not hear it from him, so I could be wrong. As for the mp3s, he and Mrs. Kozinski refuse to address them, since their existence was independently verfied by both the Times and the ABA Journal, and on that, he has no defense.

here’s a joke i heard long ago at my grandmother’s knee: a brand new prostitute-in-training just went to work at a whorehouse in miami. first day of orientation, the madam explains the ropes “first, you take off his clothes.” the new kitten piped up with a question “and then, how do i handle the genitals?”

Cyrus or his sockpuppet said that it was wrong to point out the trial that proves this, as the trial was overturned. This is ridiculous. All I was doing was pointing out it was ridiculous

The only thing that is ridiculous here is your apparent ignorance of how courts in America function. If a trial court’s decision is overruled, it is dead and gone. An attorney can no longer point to what the trial court said for proof of anything.

But, again, like I said – even if Mr. Sanai is not someone with whom you would like to share a romantic dinner, so what? He’s not a sitting federal judge with a taste for what may be child pornography and anti-Catholic jokes.

More powerful stuff against the Great Koz (what federal law clerks call Kozinski b/c we dig his intellect, “out-there” sense of humor, and writing style) at http://howappealing.law.com/ Search for “felony” and “investigation.” You’ll find a .pdf of a 2007 letter from the former Administrative Head of the U.S. Courts accusing Koz of a federal felony. He also beefs about the 9th Circuit’s failure to investigate him when it was obligated to do so. You’ll also find news of U.S.S.Ct. Chief Justice Roberts’s appointment of a special, Third Circuit panel to investigate the Koz. On the smut I say we give him a pass; Clinton copping an intern’s blo-job in the oval office raised the bar a lot higher than Koz’s stuff. Everyone should just chill, and Beware of The Thought Police. The MP3′s I’m not sure about. As for a federal felony for tampering with judicial computer systems….yeah, I’d be dialing up a high-powered defense lawyer on that one.

Disturbing images can be funny… I could link the video of donkey chasing the guy around and say: this is what my day was like… or link to the kid blowing himself and say: life sucks today.
I wouldn’t do it, because I think it’s too crude, but I know more than a few people who would laugh.

I also think a judge should be able to store images he or she is intellectually curious about.

Let’s say there was a slip-and-fall case, and the trial court held that that as a matter of law, because a supermarket failed to clean up a spill within 15 seconds, the supermarket was negligent. During the same trail, a gigantic bug frolicked in the courtroom, and the transcript read:

“Court: Holly crap, there’s a giant bug in the court room!”

The appeals court reverses the trail court’s ruling regarding negligence. However, the judge’s exclamation remains good evidence that there really was a giant bug is the courtroom (excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule).
And that evidence can be used, e.g., the Court’s administrative branch can sue the exterminator, or perhaps the giant bug, if it has a law license, can face disciplinary proceedings…

– The only thing that is ridiculous here is your apparent ignorance of how courts in America function. If a trial court’s decision is overruled, it is dead and gone. An attorney can no longer point to what the trial court said for proof of anything. –

.

Except the “facts” as ascertained below. Oh, and except for any parts of the law that the court below got correct, as a matter of law.

.

Only disgruntled dipwads argue that an appellate reversal means EVERYTHING below is reversed.

Thank you for keeping us informed concerning Judge Kozinski. I will continue to follow this. If it does prove that LA Times dropped the ball about the Judge’s alleged porn site story, then LA Times owes the Kozinski family an apology. If LA Times is accurate, then the Kozinskis have so explaining to do. I read the judge’s wife letter on your blog. All I can say is that there are two side of the story and one of their stories is the rruth. LA Times is not exactly truth and balanced. Look at the blackeye that they received from the public on their story on later rapper Tupac Shakur. I posted your article on my blog for reader to decide.

– any evidence to support your accusation that someone else had planted these files on Kozinski’s web site –
.
Poking my nose into an accusation that wasn’t mine, I see evidence. An admission by the disgruntled of file deletion is indicative of ability to modify site contents.
.
Not proof of addition of files, but certainly evidence. Combined with evidence of persistent axe to grind, I find the accusation credible. Not that placing the material is a crime, but I’d run a preliminary presumption in favor of the judge that illegal material was placed by an enemy.

Cyrus @ #76. “The case law concerning CCP 170.1(c), which Ted Frank should be familiar with, says that reassignment under this statute is reserved solely for cases of bias or misconduct. If anyone can find a published case saying differently, bring it to my attention. Until someone does, I say that Ted Frank is just making it up.”

How can a woman in Kozinski’s courtroom expect to get fair, unbiased treatment by this judge, who apparently occupies his freetime with mysoginist fantasies? It’s also dismaying to think that a judge with his standing has the same kind of sense of humor that you would expect of a pervert. It’s also dismaying to think that this judge has obstructed legal efforts to censor pornography on the basis of his own perverted personal tastes. He must be removed from the bench, immediately.

By the way, I’m not buying his wife’s (Tammy Wynette) Stand-By-Your-Man act !

“I note that trolls like daleyrocks and jem don’t have the guts to do this.”

Cyrus – I have no idea why anybody would want to expose themselves to you in meatspace. The concept of a grown man spending four years of his life litigating a disputed rent obligation of $2800 and generating the kind of court record and animus you did with U.D. Registry is just chilling.

If I were venturing an opinion, which I am not, I would say that normal people do not do such things and suggest that you seek professional help.

My mother on the subject of mixed/interracial marriages: “They all have the same thing between their legs.”

It seems, however, that nobody caught the obvious in Ms. Tiffany’s letter. She complains that Glover was a bad person for not publishing until after jeopardy had attached. And then her husband had to recuse himself. If that’s not saying, “I ain’t done something wrong unless I’m caught”, I don’t know what it is.

I’m sorry Maxine but I, in no way, endorse the extreme attacks I have seen against Kozinski or his wife. I think the material we have seen from his server is weird, ugly and mean. Not erotic and not humorous in any way I apprecite humor. I think that as a Court of Appeals judge it is not unfair to hold him to a higher standard. But that’s about where it ends with me.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Daleyrocks has not been unfair to Cyrus. He has asked important quetions. Everytime Cyrus responds with insults he loses credibility with me.

These people are sick. The photos that I’ve seen were pornographic and obscene, and don’t become the something else because they were on the same server as the family album.
Ironically, Koz’s wife’s comments demonstrate why he shouldn’t be on the bench. She bemoans the fact that the poor jurors were required to reveal embarassing personal info (presumably whether they enjoy and/or buy porn) during jury selection. Clearly if Koz (who would have presided over jury selection) allowed such questions during voir dire, he has tacitly conceded that his own choices rendered him unfit to conduct that trial. And yet, he took the affirmative action to sit by designation and do just that.
Further, he made the photos unavailable. In other words, he destroyed the very evidence that he now complains has been mischaracterized. For those of us who actually labor in the trenches of litigation, that’s called spoliation of evidence, and usually results in an adverse inference, if not an adverse judgment, against the party destroying evidence. In some situations, it’s also called obstruction of justice. However, as a practical matter, if these photos were simply funny and not obscene or pornographic, Koz and his lovely, dissembling wife, would have simply published them. Truly, a photo is worth a thousand words.

Also, as Chris notes above, Kozinski has some deep, deep misconduct to answer for in respect of his dealings with the former head of the court bureaucracy.

He unilaterally disconnected the firewall box for the Ninth Tenth and Eight Circuits when the monitoring software was installed in the firewall box.

That is going to get included in the porn/mp3 investigation. I was not there, but if Mr. Mecham is telling the truth, and after talking to him extensively I believe he is, then Kozinski was at least insubordinate and reckless, and at worst a felon.

nk: Wife voluntarily put herself in the line of fire. And yes, the more arrogant and smug defenses they put up, the more the public goes into attack mode. If the Kozinkis were the least bit concilliatory and contrite about the whole thing….. throwing themselves on the mercy of the public with profuse apologies, admitting he’s a big pervert, and perhaps checking into rehab—cliched as that is…..

Thank for the good points. The stuff you have seen so far is (with the disgusting self-fellation photo as an exception) on the mild side of the content. Patterico should post “bestwomandriver” and “chinesemassproduction” if his ISP will let him do so. That will pretty much end the “this ain’t so bad” discussion for most people; dedicated pornhounds, of course, won’t be bothered.

Judge Kozinski’s position, if he were free to talk, would almost certainly be that he engaged in no wrongdoing, period. But the reason for recusal is not wrongdoing; it is – very roughly – whether a public controversy surrounding the judge will hinder the perception that justice can be done. And that controversy was created by the falsehoods and half-truth of the LA Times article.

And really, your esthetic judgments regarding the contents of Kozinski’s server: Who cares?

I’m not particularly horrified by the material that has been published so far. Vulgar and not to everyones liking but not the end of the world.

It very likely means the end of the judge’s career. There are an awful lot of sanctimonious prigs who like nothing better than to wallow in outrage.

It sounds as if the judge and his family were naive users of computers and had little or no knowledge of how home networks can be invaded and stripped of contents.

One important thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is that if the network was private, with access by invitation only, then Sanai ‘hacked’ the judge’s computers, stripped files he had no right to download, and shopped that content around. He is in fact subject to some fairly stiff potential penalties if charged and prosecuted.

The excuse that he was acting on the suspicion that the judge was a ‘vile pornographer’ doesn’t wash for several reasons.

Can we all get really upset at Sanai for being an evil hacker. It might also be interesting to take a look at Sanai’s computers. Just saying.

– Only Shad has used the IP address used by Shad. –
.
FWIW, it’s trivial for me to appear here under more than one IP. I have several shell accounts.
.
Point being that unique/different IP is not determinative of unique human.
.
Accusations are free. At this level of jeopardy, :the internet”, accusation are better in the nature of informed speculation.

Cyrus – I’ve read a summary of your case against U.S. Registry and am familiar with what you wanted. Thank you.

I do find it interesting that nowhere one any of the threads I have visited have you disputed the abusive legal conduct described by various judges which has earned you their scorn and sanctions in their courtrooms.

I also find it interesting that you seem to feel that Judge Kozinski would not have carefully considered whether replying to your 2005 hit job on him and the Ninth Circuit regarding the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine would violate any rules of judicial conduct. You’ve already lost once on that idea, but maybe you’ll have better luck this time. Some people always believe they are smarter than everyone else.

the truth or falsity of anon’s allegation is ultimately unknowable. it’s a rabbithole with no light at the bottom, but if you’re gonna go forward with it, a pic of the gf would aid in assessing credibility.

the truth or falsity of anon’s allegation is ultimately unknowable. it’s a rabbithole with no light at the bottom, but if you’re gonna go forward with it, a pic of the gf would aid in assessing credibility.

I can’t imagine going forward with it, and I tried to make that clear, and that’s not why I want to talk to the guy.

the truth or falsity of anon’s allegation is ultimately unknowable. it’s a rabbithole with no light at the bottom, but if you’re gonna go forward with it, a pic of the gf would aid in assessing credibility.

Judge for yourself – I don’t put much faith in the veracity or the sanity of someone who types in all caps and, for that matter, his claim in the original post (that an anonymous commenter posted the story on that site) is just flat out untrue.

“It seems, however, that nobody caught the obvious in Ms. Tiffany’s letter. She complains that Glover was a bad person for not publishing until after jeopardy had attached. And then her husband had to recuse himself. If that’s not saying, “I ain’t done something wrong unless I’m caught”, I don’t know what it is.”

nk – I took her comment to mean that the reporter knew disclosure would cause a shitstorm even though it was a nonstory, but by saving it until after jury selection and the actual trial started, the LA Times wasted the time and effort of a lot of people – court personnel, jurors, etc., just to grab a more sensational headline.

I think the following sentences capture it perhaps more accurately:

“But what excuse is there for timing the story with surgical precision so as to do maximum damage to the judicial process? In doing so, the LA Times caused the effort of the court, the parties and the 150 citizens who answered the call of duty by reporting for jury service from near and far to go to waste, just to make a big splash.”

If the story had been reported earlier, a replacement judge could have been in place perhaps, the trial schedule maintained, and a mistrial avoided. Just a different interpretation.

Any episode of Family Guy contains similar material — those of you who are disgusted need to get into the new century. Besides, this is one of the fabulous things about America (and one of the last things for us to hang on to) — we can say what we want in our cartoons.

#10 seems to have some better juice on this topic — I’m sure the guy’s a pig, but I’ve met few people who always stay outside of the pen. Unless he’s broken the law, all that should matter is: IS HE A GOOD JUDGE?

You know what, this may be stupid as I’m defending Kozinski (and since they deleted it, I’m not going to get called on this) – but I’ve been thinking about it and I think that post on the other site might have been referencing this one, it might not have been the same guy. I think I’m wrong here.

Oh my, the Times is hard up for something to publish it appears. Leave the judge alone for heavens sake. Nothing on the site was out of bounds. Leave him alone. Nice to see his wife standing up for him.

Cyrus – In the matter of your mother’s divorce you keep raising the issue of the court appointing your father’s “accountant or servant” as a special master or referree as something that particularly chaps your ass. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the court order an equal division of marital property except for an investment account of your mothers and two parcels of land which it awarded to your father? Your mother, brother and you engaged in a series of ridiculous actions (lis pedens, etc.) to frustrate the sale of the land parcels. What was the reason for that? Doesn’t the special master or whatever you want to call him also have to provide an accounting to the court where both parties have an opportunity to review both receipts and disbursements? I guess what I am asking is isn’t the special master issue a giant fucking red herring just to delay matters further?

She ain’t no Silda Spitzer, so she’s gotta roll up her sleeves, take to the airwaves, write letters…before her standard of living completely evaporates.

While the $179,500 that federal appellate judges make is certainly more than that which is made by the average American, it is barely more than a first-year associate would make at a large law firm and certainly not the type of income that causes women with their own law practices to cover up their husband’s indiscretions.

Incidentally, if Ms. Tiffany were only concerned about her lifestyle, she would not care if her husband were tossed off the federal bench; he would be snapped up by private law firms and would make a salary several times what he is making now. (Consider that Michael Luttig recently left the federal bench in order to be general counsel at Boeing, where his salary increased roughly ten times over.) Logic, obviously, has taken a back seat to outright sexism.

I can see no other reason, save sexism, to imply that a woman like Ms. Tiffany – who graduated at the top of her class at UCLA Law, was on Law Review, argued before the Supreme Court, had a distinguished legal career, and now has her own law firm – is in desperate need of her husband’s government income to keep afloat.

FrankfromFresno @ 79. I think you need to look into your own “ethical sloppiness.”

The appellate court did not address the issue of whether the trial judge was correct in her assessment of CS. It didn’t need to in order to reach its finding.

“Thus, whether or not initiated and pursued in bad faith, Mr. Sanai’s action against UDR does not fall within the narrow exception created in 1999 to the general rule that only prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to fees under the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.”

The case was overruled on grounds wholly unrelated to the trial judge’s footnote about CS’s abuse of process. Accordingly, the citation would not be out of place in legal brief as evidence of the fact at issue and certainly isn’t inappropriate in this forum (no offense Patterico). Your statement regarding Ms. Tiffany’s use of the citation is off base, Frank.

If you want to “throw mud” at somebody using legal principles, you should at least make an effort to present a coherent argument that isn’t manifestly at odds with the facts.

And for the commenter who wrote, “[s]he justifies what I would be horrified by.” Don’t get cable tv. You won’t like it.

I note that trolls like daleyrocks and jem don’t have the guts to do this.

Mr. Sanai,

Ironically enough, after hacking into a judge’s server (and justifying such hacking by stating that he did not do enough to protect himself on the internet), you are seriously complaining that people don’t use their full names when responding to you?

You can excuse his behaviour all you want and maybe this kind of material is fine with you but for many many people it is unacceptable and is hypocritical for a law and order, family values conservative judge to posses and disseminate.

A family values judge? WTH is that? How about a judge who rules on the law?

I’ve seen that name on several blogs always defending Kozinski’s porn habits.

Except it’s not a porn habit. If it was, the proper response would be “so what?” I personally believe that a porn habit will land you in hell; that doesn’t mean I can impose that on public figures. But in this case, there’s no evidence of a porn habit–just offensively poor taste. Like my friends who like the movie Grosse Pointe Blank.

I can only imagine the amount of embarrassment and grief your family is going through at this time, as a result of a nationally renowned daily newspaper’s expose on the digital content your family maintained on a publicly accessible server. While your description of the content sounds more like your standard whacky humor, along with a few pieces of the blatantly bizarre, there is an obvious disconnect between your description and that of the L.A. Times. The question is, regardless of who’s description is more realistic, whether your post to this blog will help with damage control, amid this public relations nightmare?

I salute you for taking the courage to present your side of the story in a public forum, but I cannot help but think that your efforts to defend your husband and your family could be as equally dishonest as you claim the L.A. Times’ representations to be.

The L.A. Times you allege are openly and egregiously trying to besmirch your husband’s public reputation, under the premise that they are in collusion with sinister forces in the legal community who hold some kind of a grudge against Alex. Perhaps your allegations are in fact true, or perhaps they are a desperate effort by you to defend your husband’s reputation at all costs, given his public persona, and the impact this reported information my potentially have on his career as a federal judge.

It seems more often than not, that the resort to the argument of greater forces being out to get someone as a motive for misrepresenting the truth is conveniently applied when one’s public reputation is potentially tarnished. Likewise, it seems more often than not, that the media tend to scurry toward the types of stories that do in fact cause a splash, especially in relation to public officials, which by the way, we do tend to hold to a higher level of scrutiny because of their very nature as public officials.

I believe at this point, regardless of who is to be believed, a critical level of damage has already been done, and regardless of Alex’s qualifications as a federal judge, I do think that a precedent has been set where he will have to recuse himself or be asked to do so on a broad degree of cases that relate to pornography, public information or personal privacy. As such, this may prove to be quite costly to taxpayers, and perhaps the noble thing to do would be to resign his post.

It is rather sad to see a public official fall victim to the stigma caused by the media’s representations or misrepresentation, but once the information is out into the open, no matter how false or replete with embellishment, that public official’s resumption of public duties becomes quite a hefty liability.

Again, thank you for your transparency, and relative candor in explaining your side of the story. Most of us I am sure do not know which version to believe, and if we choose to believe any particular side of the story, the professional and public liability your husband has become, is too costly for us to accept his continued service.

With this said, I hope he does the right thing and steps down, and if he has any reservations about doing so, perhaps a little whisper into his ear from his beloved wife will give him drive to do so.

Gee, I guess all that pornography, passed back and forth between Dad and Son, must have cured the Son of his learning disability !

Son seems quite adept at helping Dad collect porn.

Maxine Weiss,

Marcy Tiffany and Judge Kozinski have three sons. Yale, the oldest son, is the one who runs alex.kozinski.com. Now, I’m not sure why I chose this particular comment of your nonsense to refute, but you may at least want to check those facts which can be checked before posting.

Cyrus the Virus apparently has achieved his first litigation goal – two more to go:

June 17, 2008 5:47 AM Cyrus Sanai:
To Sean Fitzgerald:

That’s the first apology I have received, and I thank you for it.

I want to point out something which gets lost in the shuffle. The reason I was looking at alex.kozinski.com was because he had placed material concerning a case I was litigating before his court on the website, connecting to it via a link on an article he published personally attacking me.

When I filed an initial misconduct complaint, the investigating judge found that there was no evidence of this, as Kozinski had erased the evidence, denied its existence, and taken the web site down for a period prior to the decision being issued.

When the site went up, I filed a new complaint, and was looking for evidence of what else Kozinski might be doing with that site. If I could find evidence that Kozinski was doing something problematic to influence judges on cases he was not assigned to, it would have helped my litigation strategy.

Well, as everyone knows, I found something else. But if Kozinski had not used his site to attack me in 2005, I would never have bothered to look for it.

That’s why I have to call “BULLSHIT!” on Prof. Lessig, Prof. Volokh, and the Kozinski couple. The Kozinskis lost any expectations of privacy when he distributed links and used it to violated the canons of judicial ethics. As for attorney ethics (very different from judicial ethics or normal human ethics), once Kozinski inserted himself into my litigation inappropriately, it’s my duty and right to undo the negative consequences and turn the situation to my litigation advantage. That’s what good lawyers do: take lemons handed out by judges and turn them into sweet lemonade.

I’ve achieved my first litigation objective, as Chief Justice of the United States Roberts has appointed an investigative committtee from the Third Circuit. I have two more to accomplish from this, though I’ll them under my hat for now. However, I will see that seeing Judge Kozinski humiliated, as he has been, was never my goal. I was a big fan of his before he decided to use me as a pinata.

In regards to Cyrus, would you quit lying to the public? I hope you get sanctioned again, at this rate.

According to the CCP 170.1 (c), states the following:

(c) At the request of a party or on its own motion an appellate court shall consider whether in the interests of justice it should direct that further proceedings be heard before a trial judge other than the judge whose judgment or order was reviewed by the appellate court.

Courtesy of http://law.onecle.com/california/civil-procedure/170.1.html . Source. Cited. Go away Cyrus. You’re like the Jack Thompson of non-videogame law. Go home, and learn to be a lawyer! I hope someone files a bar complaint for falsifying statements which can easily be shown on this blog. Evidence? Yep.

I predict this judge will be brought up on child porn charges. Congress just passed a law that makes ANY representation of child porn, even a drawing, massively illegal. He is TOAST.

And I predict you didn’t read through the Lessig thread, where they’ve already gone over the fact it was established years ago the one photo that could be described as “child pornography” had person who was in his late 20s.

The Judge sould do the right thing and step off the bench and go back in to the dark closet which he came. The nerve to take on a porn case when he is an advocate and user of such material. Shame on him, shame on her and shame on the son for following in the parents misguided footsteps…

Cyrus has really had a string of bad luck running up against biased judges, Grimes in LA, Thibodeau in Seattle, Zilly in the Western District, and Kozinski in the Ninth Circuit. With a pattern of bad luck like that, who can blame the man for being angry. It’s not like his altering documents, not responding to discovery requests, filing frivolous motions, suing judges, and other similar behavior demonstrate any lack of respect for the judicial process which would earn him any enmity from judges or anything. Cyrus is a saint, after all, and is planning on winning his cases, whatever it takes. I would buy a used car from him, how about you?

After much consideration, I have decided to take down the two posts by “anon.” I spoke with him tonight and he did not retract his story, but he said he would be OK with my taking the comments down if I wanted to. Ultimately I don’t think it’s right to leave up that sort of thing unless it can be substantiated in a journalistically appropriate way, AND it can be determined that it’s an appropriate subject. I don’t feel confident on either score and so I have decided to remove the posts. anon does not think this is censorship.

Gee, will his mom write a letter defending him too? She is probably just as sick as he is.
There is nothing funny about child porn or animal porn.
He shouldnt even be a judge.
I have a warped sense of humor too but I can guarantee you that Im not laughing about either of those subjects. What people do in their own bedroom is their business (between two consenting ADULTS) but being as how he made it possible for all to see, thats when it becomes everyones business. This man has problems and his little wifey is covering for him. Also, how bad is it to blame your child to cover up something that you yourself have done. I find the entire thing despicable.

It is interesting to see that the judge responsible for overturning a law addressing images of child sexual exploitation himself posts inappropriate material. Makes you wonder what he DIDN’T post but has on his own computer…

Eric Blair, bill clinton never put PUBIC HAIR on anyones Coke can. I love how people try to play down something awful by bringing up something that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. AT last count, most men enjoyed blowjobs. Not so much having pubic hair on their soda.

And at the time of seeing Anita Hill making her claims 69% of women didn’t believe he ever joked about someone else doing it to him, either. (I don’t remember the exact percentages myself but I watched those hearings and the fallout closely, and a lot of people watched those hearings and I remember most at the time believed Anita Hill was a liar.)

There is nothing funny about child porn or animal porn.
He shouldnt even be a judge.

“his little wifey,” besides approximately doubling your IQ, has achieved more in the past year, and earned more in the past year, than you have or will in your lifetime.

It’s amazing that so many misogynistic comments come from women (if, indeed, Marcy is a woman.) It’s almost as if Marcy is projecting her own justified feelings of inadequacy onto all members of her gender.

It seems like you didn’t really see the images. I took patterico up on his(?) offer to view some of them. No child porn or animal porn, at least as I understand the meaning of those terms.

Some silly ‘joke’ pictures that, in retrospect, probably aren’t that funny. One self-fellatio photo that was a little gross (and, frankly, looked doctored to me although I’m no expert).

Overall, it was pretty harmless stuff. Nothing outside the bounds of what one would expect to find, say, in response to a Google for the terms “raunchy humor.”

The alleged ‘animal porn’ video was grainy footage of a mule pestering some drunkard who was trying to relieve himself on a farm or in a field somewhere. It made the rounds on the Internet five or six years ago. The LAT description was clearly intended to sensationalize that one.

These images are to porn what Amy Winehouse is to the blues.

If you have the time, I’d encourage you to scan them before you make judgments about him or slime his family on these boards.

And for those of you calling for the guy’s head over this, that seems a bit extreme. Since when is having a sense of humor that doesn’t conform to your rather narrow standards a reason for someone to lose their job?

To paraphrase the Capital One commercial, what’s in your computer’s cache.

And for those of you calling for the guy’s head over this, that seems a bit extreme. Since when is having a sense of humor that doesn’t conform to your rather narrow standards a reason for someone to lose their job?

Well, if you don’t have Judge Kozinski’s brain (or Marcy Tiffany’s brain, either), why not feel powerful by calling for his head? Those who can’t achieve, destroy….?

And for those of you calling for the guy’s head over this, that seems a bit extreme. Since when is having a sense of humor that doesn’t conform to your rather narrow standards a reason for someone to lose their job?

Well, I certainly understand that people have different senses of humor, and also that many of the images weren’t offensive. But have read through every comment on this thread and I agree most with Daniel, who said

Joe Bingham you try to spin it anyway you want but a photo of a man penetrating a woman is pornographic,whether it is game or not an aroused transsexual is not funny (unless you are a pervert).

and

The bottom line is the judge has a collection of inappropriate images that are available online and is unfit to judge a trial about pornography.

I saw no one answer these points except to say, basically, “well they didn’t offend me so they’re not out of bounds” and calling people who call pornographic images just that, “sanctimonious prigs” and my favorite “responsive answer”, from “G”:

Lol, where do you people come from?
which is no response at all.

Seriously, I understand that there are privacy issues and political stuff and several other issues involved here. But porn is porn and trying to dismiss those who are pointing that out is just dishonest.

And about that donkey video? nk said it best in that other thread:

Do you really think this was a candid photoshoot, Patterico? That the video camera and its operator just happened to be there when a totally innocent man felt a desperate need to defecate in a field occupied by a horny jack? Who could not find the time to pull his pants and underwear up? Throughout the whole scene? This was a scripted bestiality video. Yes, the gypsy was *cavorting* with the donkey.
Comment by nk — 6/14/2008 @ 1:14 pm

I think that explains the alleged child porn, the subject of which was actually was in his 20s. Don’t pretend for a minute if you have that kind of flexibility you wouldn’t be doing some bending over, honey.

I would like to know from Cyrus whether the server he visited was actually configured like a web site such as this one, because that is the way people are talking. My understanding is that it was more like a home computer not in a visitor friendly format which should have made it clear that it was not a public site.

Jim, if I had a garage sale, put up signs around the neighborhood with my address, then didn’t take the signs down and left the garage door open, should I be shocked if someone walked in to the garage?

You didn’t complete the analogy. Someone walked into the garage, took pictures of everything, and got them published in a national newspaper. Would you be taken aback then?

And I predict you didn’t read through the Lessig thread, where they’ve already gone over the fact it was established years ago the one photo that could be described as “child pornography” had person who was in his late 20s.

The new child porn law states that it does not matter how old the person depicted in the child porn is. *ANY REPRESENTATION* meant to lead the viewer into believing that the image is child porn is illegal. This judge is in great deal of legal jeopardy at this point. And quite hypocritical too.

COME ON PEOPLE…THE PORN INDUSTRY GROSSES NEARLY 5 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR…DO WE REALLY THINK THAT THIS GUY IS THE ONLY JUDGE, LAWYER, MAYOR, GOVERNER, CONGRESSMAN, OR PRESIDENT WITH IMAGES THAT MY FRIEND REV. FOWLER WOULD CONSIDER PORNAGRAPHIC SOMEWHERE IN THEIR HARDDRIVES?

Why is it that the moral MINORITY finds it neccessary to try to impose their holy-er, than thou values on MAJORITY of people in this country that don’t have an issue with finding humor in uncomfortable situations?

I couldn’t agree with Karen more. Good grief. Who ARE these people? They see these things as “funny” and give full access to it to their children and actually use that as a defense???
Comment by Rightwingsparkle — 6/16/2008 @ 6:46 am

Now I don’t think it’s ok to let kids have access to this kind of stuff (I don’t know how old their kid is) I find this commment amusing from someone who comments on and reads Ace of Spades.

Do you really think this was a candid photoshoot, Patterico? That the video camera and its operator just happened to be there when a totally innocent man felt a desperate need to defecate in a field occupied by a horny jack? Who could not find the time to pull his pants and underwear up? Throughout the whole scene? This was a scripted bestiality video. Yes, the gypsy was *cavorting* with the donkey.
Comment by nk — 6/14/2008 @ 1:14 pm

Comment by no one you know — 6/17/2008 @ 6:41 am

Wow, take your head out of your rear end please and note that the video your refering to is years old and circulated around the internet as a joke for a long time and even made it on TV. It is by no means pornography or even remotly beastiality.

The new child porn law states that it does not matter how old the person depicted in the child porn is. *ANY REPRESENTATION* meant to lead the viewer into believing that the image is child porn is illegal.

Can’t believe I’m getting into an argument over this, but whatever law you’re referring to, the last time I checked, it’s been established in the courts it has to be an actual kid to be child porn.

That’s kind of a moot point anyway because it’s a pretty weak argument that the one picture that could possibly be described this way was meant in any way to lead someone to believe anyone a kid was involved. The circumstances also make a difference (i.e., the fact that this was a parody) or otherwise you could be arrested for having pictures of a naked kid in a National Geographic magazine.

I retract my Winehouse comment and replace it with, “these images are to porn what Kenny G. is to Jazz.”

No One @ 192: Interesting post. I’ll take a run at this.

I would dispute the truism that every “photo of a man penetrating a woman is pornographic.”

Webster’s defines porn as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” There are images of people copulating which have been created for purposes other arousal (clinical, educational, humor, etc.). Think about medical school text books and Playboy cartoons. These images would seem to fall into that category. Basically, they range from R-Rated American Pie/Apatow-style humor to more pedestrian PG-13 type material.

The images that I saw were clearly not intended to arouse. Anybody that gets aroused from the video of the mule is in need of serious therapy and a threat to farm animals everywhere.

It seems intellectually dishonest to call the material pornography or obscene in a rush to declare someone unfit on the basis of other’s judgments.

From all that I have heard about the judge, he takes his work extremely seriously and is renown for well-reasoned and thoughtful opinions. I understand that he came to America with very little and essentially made his way here through hard work and intelligence. Seems like the kind of person that I’d want to hear my case if I ever ended up in federal court.

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Its predeccesor was struck down and Congress rewrote it. The new law has not been ruled upon directly by SCOTUS yet.

I know of one case where a guy was convicted locally for a comic book which depicted sex and violence against children.

i had to check out your blog (linked at comment #97 on this thread) to see if you exhibited as much venom over there as you do here. thanx for the yucks! the second post down, entitled “fun with mom” and consisting of a philip roth excerpt in which a young man dreams he’s on the phone with his mom, and he asks her right out

“can we have incest?”

and then proceeds to consummate his desires, is interesting in light of your references to the kozinskis as perverts. i also laughed at your representation that you’re from west los angeles in juxtaposition with your blogpost further down “growing up next to the san gabriel river”. honey, i grew up in pacific palisades, an authentic part of west los angeles, and i’m here to tell you that you’re an obviously embittered, covetous, inland piece of bourgeois trash.

Can’t we strike down the notion that the honorable Judge Alex(doesn’t he have a t.v. show on the WB already?)did anything that is going to somehow limit his ability to uphold the law as sworn?

Every verdict passed down is judged and graded by a panel of his peers, it’s reffered to as the appelate court…and each and every convicted felon has the right to have his appeal heard, based on resonable cause. If the Honorable Judge A wasn’t living up to his duties, he would have been stripped of his position long, long ago.

A person has the right, reguardless of rank, to disagree or differentiate with the moral opinion of another individual…it’s called human nature, and its what makes us unique as individuals, and not just a flock of sheep, following a bearded man…with a really big stick.

Naah, I prefer my ancestors’s sense of humor. They would take a prisoner and start a slow-burning fire in a barbecue pit dug into the ground. While the wood was turning into coals, they would amuse themeselves by smashing the prisoner’s joints, fingers and toes first, with a hammer. When the fire was just right, they would put the prisoner on a spit over the bed of coals and slow-cook him. Depending on how kind they felt, they would tie the prisoner on the spit or insert it through him. (Inserting through him was a quicker death.)

OK…so after perusing this board & reading many comments (some insightful, some imbecilic) I have these observations:

A disinterested party would NOT have easily discovered these files. Forget all the stuff about the website being “private” or public”… it’s nonsense in this case. Whether sufficient precautions were taken to protect the files is moot. The fact remains that unless you intentionally performed specific search commands, this site would not be of interest to you.

Should, in the unlikely event, a disinterested party “stumble” across these files & take offense, they would not proceed to make copies for either personal use or public distribution. In the unlikely event that I accidentally accessed these files, I would have simply backed out and gone on my way. After all, none of the files is so abhorrent per se that they warrant further examination.

A truly objective journalist/media outlet would not have waited until a jury had been selected in a specific case before a specific judge to reveal the existence of these files. That much, I would hope, is obvious.

Many posters seem to feel that humour they consider inappropriate or vulgar is grounds for public/professional ostracism. I suppose these same posters feel some empathy for the critics of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.

Other posters have taken their offense to such extremes that a “video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal” is viewed not merely as “bestiality” but “scripted beastiality,”…as one poster hysterically claims, it’s “animal sex-with-humans”!!! Even the donkey is complicit in this outrage. And, this poster demands to know, WHO PAID THE DONKEY? Or was the donkey another unwitting victim. I’m waiting for PETA to weight in on this before I join the Condemnation Chorus.

Other posters trot out the usual “outrages” over pedophilia, misogyny…even the exploitation of disabled offspring. In my opinion, dragging these straw dogs into the conversation IS exploitation, & highly indicative of small minded, petty natures.

And, finally, there is the most telling statement of all, made by Atty. Sanai:

“…I will keep beating this drum until the cows–or women dressed as cows–come home: what about Terry Carter’s article about the mp3s? Mrs. Kozinski knows how I found the directory–it was the mp3s they uploaded and file shared. She nitpicks about the LA Times article, but CANNOT ADDRESS HIS MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM, because on that, there is no defense.” (caps mine).

Ah yes, WHAT ABOUT THE INDEFENSIBLE MP3s??? Surely, “we” are all consumed by the “more serious” mp3 issue?
Well, not really. Mr. Sanai. And, evidently, neither was the reporter or the editor at the Times. Most of us don’t give half a hoot about the mp3 issue.
But you know that, don’t you? You also know this thin tissue of outrage over donkeys and bungee diving and masquerading “priests” will soon burn itself out & you want a “fall back” position. A second chop with a new axe, so to speak. Just in case Judge Kozinski survives the first. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Maybe you can find a scummy client (one who, at least, pays his donkeys a living wage) to sue him for all those illegally shared MP3s.
Well, good luck with that. And good luck with getting another stooge at the Times to cooperate with Round Two.
I have a feeling that the fun’s gone out of this particular parlor game.
At least it has for me.

With your ancestors in those times it was probably best to stay away from the comedy clubs.

Historically any number of social groupings at varied levels of ‘civilization’ have enforced their notions of propriety in an extreme manner. Hey, is that the Spanish Inquisition? I didn’t expect them. Then you have the Turks and Armenians, the Serbs, the Croatians, our own lynchings, the list is endless.

Also, that was a very revealing answer. Point 1 of my previous comment should no longer be regarded as lighthearted japery, but now becomes an imperative.

Random question for Maxine: Which article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice do you believe subjects those in the military who possess pornography to a dishonorable discharge? The closest I can come up with, based on a quick read-through of my copy of the Manual for Courts Martial would be Article 133 – “Conduct unbecoming to an officer and gentleman” – but that article only applies to commissioned officers and, by my reading of the MCM, possession of otherwise lawful pornography arguably wouldn’t meet the elements of that offense.

The contention that judges should be subject to the UCMJ is so silly as to not bear further response.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, though I’d like to think I’m a reasonably educated layperson.

Hey uh, Maxine…do you mean private, like the “stuff” file, or private like you don’t want me to distribute it on this new fangled invention called the Intra-net, or something? I’m a little confused, your comment reeks of sarcasm…but I didn’t think you had a sense of humor(especially one so edge-ie and contraversial)? I, for one, am truly glad that the people who’ve contributd to board have helped you overcome your narrow-minded views on humor, after all…it’s said that laughter is indeed the best medicine!

Point 1 of my previous comment should no longer be regarded as lighthearted japery, but now becomes an imperative.
That’s been resolved. This is what I find humorous these days. (Bare female breast warning.)

FOR ALL THE NITWITS WHO THINK THIS SLEAZEBAG KOZINKI’S BEHAVIOR WAS ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGEDLY PRIVATE, DO READ THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR FEDERAL JUDGES:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID
IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE
OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

C. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.

LET ME REITERATE THE SALIENT POINTS HERE:

A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny.

A judge must therefore accept restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.

The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.

AND I THINK WE CAN STATE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT SLEAZEBAG KOZINSKI HAS VIOLATED THIS CODE OF CONDUCT EGREGIOUSLY, REGARDLESS OF HIS STUPID WIFE MARCY’S SELF-SERVING, DISINGENUOUS AND MISLEADING LETTER TO THE CONTRARY.

AND ANON, IF YOU READ THIS, PLEASE GET YOUR GIRLFRIEND TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE 3D CIRCUIT DETAILING THE INCIDENT WHEN SLEAZEBAG KOZINSKI GROPED YOUR GIRLFRIEND. YOU WOULD BE DOING THE LEGAL PROFESSION A WORLD OF GOOD-YOU KNOW THAT-SLEAZY JUDGES DO NOT BELONG ON THE BENCH, PERIOD, IF THEY CAN’T ABIDE BY THEIR JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT, THEN TAKE OFF YOUR ROBES AND GO AND MAKE PORNO MOVIES IF YOU WANT-BUT STEP THE HELL AWAY FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION!

Get a grip on reality. Yale Kozinski is the eldest “child,” who is in his late 20s and married. He is the one who made, registered, and maintained the family server.

The Kozinski’s youngest son (who was born after 1985, IIRC) is the one with autism. I’m not sure why you like to continue to slander the Kozinskis by implying that they have allowed minor, developmentally-disabled children to see this stuff, but it is nowhere close to the truth. Yes, Maxine, people can have more than one son. We live in America, not China.

Furthermore, no one – Cyrus the Virus included – has ever said that the Kozinskis view these images in succession, as a group, during family reunions, or do anything save store them on a home computer.

Now, pray tell, what do you have against Alex and Marcy? The fact that they both came from not very much and have managed to have wildly successful careers? Jealousy isn’t pretty, honey.

Oh what a sight. The sweet little wife standing up for her sweet little hussy. How sweet! Thats when we get to see the sweet little wifeys, by the side of their embattled and embarrased little hubbys. Fending off the bloodthirsty mob, crying for his head. How so sweet!

IT DOESN’T MATTER A DAMN WHETHER HE SHOWED THEM TO ANYONE, HE’S A CHIEF JUDGE OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT, HE ABUSED THE TRUST IN HIS POSITION, AND HE ENGAGED IN FAR MORE THAN JUST THE “APPEARANCE” OF IMPROPRIETY-FOR GOD’S SAKE, HE GOT A GD TRIAL DISMISSED, DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THE ENORMOUS IMPLICATIONS OF THAT? TO DISMISS A CASE, WHICH IS HUGELY EXPENSIVE TO THE TAXPAYER? THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR JUDGE KOZINSKI’S INDISCRETIONS HERE? HOW COULD ANYONE FAIL TO BE OUTRAGED BY THAT? AND MARCY, THAT STUPID BITCH, (WHO HAS REALLY, AND I MEAN REALLY, HARMED HER HUSBAND’S POSITION BY THAT ASININE, DECEPTIVE LETTER OF HERS) CALLS THIS PORN SMUT “FUNNY”-UH, MARCY, SOMETHING TELLS ME THE 3D CIR. IS NOT GOING TO SEE IT THAT WAY, IN FACT, THEY ARE GOING TO THROW THE BOOK AT YOUR PORNO REVELING HUBBY-AND HE WILL DESERVE EVERY BIT OF THE PAIN THAT WILL COME-SO0 WHY DON’T YOU DO US TAXPAYERS A FAVOR, AND JUST RESIGN, KOZINSKI, SINCE YOUR PORNO GOOGLING HAS ALREADY COST THE TAXPAYERS A FORTUNE – BELIEVE ME THAT WILL BE FIRST AND FOREMOSST ON THE 3D CIR. PANELS MIND-AS IT SHOULD BE!

Actually, the relevant portion or as you put it, the “salient point” is this:The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.

OK I’ll bite: Exactly which of these files leads you to believe that this Judge cannot possibly
execute his responsibilities as defined above?
And why?

Why are you so worked up, did The Honorable Judge A.K. 47 have pics of your donkey in that file? Are you upset that he didn’t share the royalties with you Paris? I am impressed though, somehow you’ve taken a non-discript act, searching for porn online…and made it sound like a new olympic event! Where do I sign up for the Porno-Googling trials?

Katie-ok, I’LL bite! READ MY POST ABOVE, THAT’S ENOUGH RIGHT THERE TO GET HIS ASS CANNED. HE HAD TO DISMISS THE CASE BECAUSE HIS PORNO REVELING COMPROMISED HIS IMPARTIALITY AS A JUDGE IN A CASE WHERE ILLEGAL PORNO, AND WHAT CONSTITUTES ILLEGAL PORNO, WAS THE BASIS FOR THE PROSECUTION-THE CASE IS DISMISSED, KATIE, A REALLY EXPENSIVE FEDERAL TRIAL-BUT I DON’T EXPECT SWEETUMS LIKE YOU TO COMPREHEND THE ENORMITY OF THAT, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TO ASK, YOU DON’T GET IT!

Did mommie forget to hug you as a child or something? You’ve reffered to the HONORABLE Judge A’s wife as a stupid bitch, and now attacked Katie as a sweetums…you sir, need to step away from the computer, re-velcro your shoes…zip up that sweet cardigan, and find somewhere else to live out your female abandonment issues…goodbye.

Hey Larry-THAT STUPID BITCH MARCY IS NOT A VERY GOOD LAWYER, BECAUSE A GOOD LAWYER WOULD NEVER HAVE WRITTEN A DOCUMENT LIKE THAT WHICH WILL BE USED AGAINST HIM. HA HA HA! THAT’S WHY SHE’S A STUPID BITCH!

AND AS FAR AS KOZINSKI GOES, HIS ABUSE OF POWER, HIS ARROGANCE IN THINKING HE CAN CONTINUE VIEWING PORN AS IF HE WERE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, AND ALSO GROPING LAW STUDENTS AT RECEPTIONS (AS ANON RELATED ABOVE-WHICH I FIND COMPLETELY CREDIBLE, BECAUSE IF YOU REPORT A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO THE COMPLAINANT, NOT THE JUDGE-IT’S THE WHOLE POWER COMPLEX, YOU SEE)

JUDGE KOZINSKI IS A SLEAZEBAG WHO BY HIS ARROGANT ACTIONS HAS UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW, AND JUSTICE. LIKE I SAID, IF HE WANTS TO TAKE OFF HIS ROBES AND GO AND MAKE PORNO MOVIES, THAT’S GREAT, I COULD CARE LESS-BUT HE DOESN’T BELONG ON THE BENCH, HE HAS EGREGIOUSLY VIOLATED HIS CODE OF CONDUCT, AND SHAMED THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS A WHOLE. GET THE EFFING SOB KOZINSKI OFF THE BENCH-NOW!

Why do people keep referring to Marcy Tiffany, Esq., as “wifey”? Does it make people happy to belittle an accomplished woman? I’m sorry, but my feminist is coming out in full force on this one. She’s a brilliant and accomplished woman by any standard, one who likely out-earns her husband and has had a distinguished legal career. “Wifey” she is not.

KatieWithRoses – you’re being rational, which is clearly inappropriate for this site.

Judges are not Gods – AK recused himself because the LA Times misrepresented what was on his server, not because he couldn’t be impartial. You still haven’t answered Katie’s question: which pictures/videos affect his partiality?

A second question. If the existence of a few sexual jokes on the judge’s server mean that he would be too biased towards the defence (presumably) to fairly adjudicate a porn trial, would the presence of a Koran in the house of another judge be a sure sign that he could not uphold the First Amendment?

Larry Flint – notice that it’s the women (myself, Katie, Amy Peikoff, Marcy Tiffany, to name a few) who defend the judge as a decent, honourable man who cares about the women in his life. The men are the ones who want AK off the bench, who call Marcy Tiffany “wifey,” and Katie “sweetums.”

He did not “dismiss the case.” He recused himself and declared a mistrial.

Secondly, while some of the files were sexually explicit, they were not pornographic.

Thirdly, you might wish to ask why these files were shared with the general public/media. A “reasonable” mind might conclude that Kozinski, while responsible for assembling the files, is NOT responsible for distributing to the public at large. That responsibility belongs to Atty.Sanai and the LA Times.

And now, to every other site that has decided to
copy/paste the urls so we can all ogle the cow & donkey show.

Uh, Bridget, sweetums, I think you’re missing the point about the mistrial-the mistrial was CAUSED BY DOUCHEBAG KOZINSKI’S APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY -OKAY? IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ACTUAL IMPROPRIETY, BUT THE “APPEARANCE” OF IMPROPRIETY!

AND MARCY, ESQ. SHOULD HAVE “STUPID BITCH ATTORNEY” AFTER THE “ESQ.” BECAUSE, NO LAWYER I KNOW WOULD HAVE WRITTEN AN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT-SHEESH-HERE ON THE EAST COAST, WE’VE BEEN LAUGHING OUR ASS OFF ABOUT HER ATTEMPT TO COVER FOR HER DOUCHEBAG HUSBAND’S DISSEMBLING ON THE SUBJECT-HELL KOZINSKI SOUNDS LIKE A RIGHT PROPER CRIMINAL HE DOES! ALL CRIMINALS SAY, UH UH, I DON’T KNOW WHERE THAT ILLEGAL PORN CAME FROM, OFFICER, HONEST! UH UH UH, MAYBE SOMEBODY GOT ON MY COMPUTER AND PUT THERE UH UH UH!

SHEESH, KOZINSKI-WHAT A SCREW-OFF HOW HILARIOUS THAT YOU WOULD USE THE SAME LINES AS A CRIMINAL CAUGHT WITH CHILD PORN-HILARIOUS!

Ha,ha,ha…my good friend judges…I think hollywood made a serious mistake in casting Mel Gibson for the lead role in Conspiracy Theory…you would have really nailed that role, Oscar quality stuff! Seriiously, bad things happen to the complaintants, not the judges…power complex? If that’s truly the case, why don’t you drop your vendetta against Judge A., and start one against the federal magistrates that determine whether acusations against judges are factual.

p.s. AND BEFORE I SIGN OFF, REMEMBER, ANON. PUBLISHED ABOVE THAT HIS GIRLFRIEND WAS GROPED HARD BY KOZINSKI AT A RECEPTION. IF YOU ALL THINK THAT SUCH IS ENTIRELY BEYOND THE REALM OF YOUR PRECIOUS MF KOZINSKI TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WELL, ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT YOU ARE PRETTY NAIVE, AND WOULD BE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT, THAT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THEY INVESTIGATE FEDERAL JUDGES FOR PUBLIC CORRUPTION (AND THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY OPENED AN INVESTIGATION ON KOZINSKI) FOR JUST THIS TYPE OF ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT. THAT’S WHY I SINCERELY HOPE THAT ANON, OR ANON’S GIRLFRIEND WILL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT TO THE 3D CIR. WHO IS INVESTIGATING THIS SLEAZEBAG KOZINSKI AKA “THE GROPER” BECAUSE I KNOW, ANON IS TELLING THE TRUTH.

Omigosh… I’m a sweetums! I’m no longer “intimidating,” or “intriguing” because nanotechnologist-turned-esquire freaks men out… awww! I’m now a “sweetums,” which is a mere syllable away from “sweetheart.” There’s hope for me.

Larry Flint – you’ll have to fight PatHMV for me.

Katie – thank you. Drawer of a nightstand, found when someone who had been invited over to the house a few weeks’ prior meandered in through an open window to see if he could find any good dirt.

I hope someone who wants to throw Judge Kozinski under the bus will answer the Koran question. How can any woman expect a fair hearing from a man who reads the Koran? How can any person accused of obscenity expect a fair trial from a man who thinks women ought to be in burqas? What about atheists? What are they do to?

It’s called “Substitution of Judge”, SOJ for short. You can exclude the judge you’re assigned to plus two more, without cause, in my jurisdiction. I would have SOJ’d Kozinski in all my cases even before this. I don’t like flamboyant, “brilliant” judges. I like courteous, patient drudges.

Typical radical left wing loonies covering for each other. Your husband is a disgusting pervert and should not be on the bench. Just more evidence of why many people refer to this court as the “9th Circus” and have no respect for it. If you or he cannot recognize porn when you see it then you are sicker than I would have even thought.

I worked in the federal courts for a few years, and I must say it’s disappointing to watch human beings that really seem to enjoy bringing down an honest, fair judge simply because his tastes may not square with yours. I haven’t seen any evidence that this judge did anything other than try to remain impartial and assure that someone accused of a crime got a fair trial. There is no evidence that he was sharing anything with anybody, not MP3s nor jokes much less photos and videos, most of which are regularly shown on television and readily available from hundreds of sites on the Internet including YouTube. Someone broke into his home computer with his private, personal stuff because he lacked the technical expertise to protect it. I recall the FBI raiding a federal judge’s secretary’s home once upon a time because they believed she was hosting a porno site. Turned out that the poor woman (in her 70′s) had a PC that got hacked by some Russian “entrepreneurs.”

Some of you also have mischaracterized the nature of Judge Kozinski’s dispute with the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. A few overzealous individuals in that organization secretly installed monitoring software on routers throughout the federal judiciary many years ago. Reportedly, some staffers in Washington then began surreptitiously reading the email correspondence of various federal judges around the country and monitoring the web sites they were visiting. Upon learning of this, Judge Kozinski ordered the disconnection of the Ninth Circuit from the judiciary’s wide area network until the matter was addressed. He was the only federal judge willing to stand up for the privacy of every other judge and employee in the federal courts because he was risking retaliation from the people that control the purse strings in the federal courts.

So, while some of you are worried about women painted as cows, perhaps you ought to consider where the country will be when we have an entire judiciary of politically correct robots willing to rubber stamp whatever some government bureaucrat labels as appropriate. Some of you no doubt would be just as happy living in (Red) China or (North) Korea. Whatever happened to the Red in China anyway?

Vic Trola posted:
“So, while some of you are worried about women painted as cows, perhaps you ought to consider where the country will be when we have an entire judiciary of politically correct robots willing to rubber stamp whatever some government bureaucrat labels as appropriate.”

Unfortunately, we crossed that particular Rubicon
about 2 decades ago.

And still, I am not willing to see this particular judge washed and hung out to dry by the likes of his critics.

“I haven’t seen any evidence that this judge did anything other than try to remain impartial and assure that someone accused of a crime got a fair trial.”

Assistant Devil: There are some nice areas of Whittier, north of the Boulevard…..Friendly Hills etc.. Garbage Grove is another matter entirely.

Neighborhoods in upscale Palos Verdes can vary.

As for the notorious Porno Maven Judge and his little Missus…..I have it on good authority that fellow Palos Verdians are planning to run them outta there on a rail. Palos Verdes being all-Wasp, and Kozinski being a big ‘ol Jews (at least the wife had the good sense to change her name !)…..the community never really accepted them anyway.

Can you imagine finding out the bizarre Jewish Family next door is into deep porn and passing it around…..?

—It’s just a glorified tract home, too. Theirs isn’t one of the more exclusive Palos Verdes custom homes with all-electric utilities. Snicker.

Then again, I guess, if nothing else, given their modest home, (by Palos Verdes standards) Kosinski practiced some restraint with the public tax monies he’s leeched off of for years.

I don’t think that the point your making, that Ms. T didn’t want to be overtly indentified with Jewiness or associated in the public mind with Judge K, makes any sense. The letter above would sort of defeat the purpose on both counts, n’est pa?

Professional women often choose to maintain their own names, particularly when they have established some career currency under that name. Of course, a woman would probably know that, Max.

the wife is as warped as her husband & sons if she thinks this gross and pornographic material is funny. it is degrading to women and it shows a lack of respect. this is a family with poor judgement, passed on from parents to kids. the judge deserves to be removed from his position of public trust.

I feel sorry for the Kozinskys in this mess. If anything the moral to the story speaks to information security: Make sure your private material is truly private and protected or you will be publicly mocked and humiliated by the press.

Any living, breathing person today should understand, hopefully, that the media rarely publishes a story at face value. Face value just won’t sell. The tuth has to be dressed up a bit before it’s worthy of the front page.

I also think that Judge Kozinsky acted appropriately by removing himself from the case. Doing so expresses his desire to see the defendant receive a fair trial, which is the root of why the story received so much press to begin with.

The people crying for his resignation are outright hypocrites. I’d love to see how one of them would react to the media putting a spin on something they think is harmless in their lives. Oh, but the media won’t look at the average Joe.

I worked in the federal courts for a few years, and I must say it’s disappointing to watch human beings that really seem to enjoy bringing down an honest, fair judge simply because his tastes may not square with yours

Uhhhh… That’s what obscenity prosecutors and judges do ALL THE TIME. They destroy people’s lives because their holier-than-thou tastes do not square with those they are prosecuting.

What a sick pervo! He obviously is whacking it beneath the bench when the trial is going on, then and his stupid wife and son all whack it to their porno together at their home in the palisades. All his decisions should be overturned and he should be driven off the bench! Maybe his natural forte is repping pornographers in the Valley.

Oh really?! So you think a judge attempting to put someone in jail for obscenity while himself posting ‘obscene’ images is not a hypocrite? The strong-handed government employees that are destroying people’s lives by prosecuting them for silly obscenity issues should themselves be investigated.

Anybody wanna take a guess as to why Marcy Tiffany didn’t wanna adopt her husband’s surname?

Maxine, she has her husband’s surname. A quick search reveals that she was Marcy J. Tiffany back in the day; she’s now Marcy J.K. Tiffany. Now, I’m no cat lady, but I would venture to guess that the “K” stands for “Kozinski.”

Hey, maybe she likes having a last name that people can spell. Personally, I enjoy having a last name that gets spelled and pronounced correctly, although this is mostly because, like Ms. Tiffany’s name, my surname is also more common as a first name. Cripes, Koz has been all over the news for the past week, and people still can’t spell his last name correctly – even when having just read an article about him.

If she were ashamed of her brilliant husband, she wouldn’t have given the kids his name. Nothing sinister there. You’re grasping at straws.

Remember this cute little statement that used to be on the Marcy’s site as recent as this morning….

Marcy Tiffany became involved in special education law because the school district was failing to meet the needs of her gifted, but learning disabled, child.
—www.specialedlaw.org

Apparently, Ms. Tiffany deleted that precious little statement from her site, and replaced it with this:

Before developing her practice in special education law, Ms. Tiffany was a community/parent activist on behalf of special needs children, and helped form the Palos Verdes Parents Coalition to provide education and support for parents of special needs students in her local community.
—www.specialedlaw.org

In other words: we are all supposed to believe that Ms. Tiffany goes around suing government school districts out of some altruistic obligation to society in general, but certainly not because her behavorially challenged (BUT GIFTED !!!!) Little Darling isn’t being catered to enough by taxpayer-supported government schools.

Uh, Ms. Tiffany, like um, if the number #1 ranking Palos Verdes Penninsula School District isn’t meeting your kid’s needs, ……maybe you could try homeschooling?, instead of a taxpayer shakedown.

Ya think?

Wyner & Tiffany specializes in representing children with disabilities in special education and civil rights disputes with school districts and school district officials who fail to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).
—-www.specialedlaw.org

In other words, Ms. Tiffany spends her time perpetuating frivolous lawsuits against government agencies, who then are forced to use taxpayers’ money to defend said frivolous lawsuits….

Marcy Tiffany became involved in special education law because the school district was failing to meet the needs of her gifted, but learning disabled, child.

You don’t suppose Ms. Tiffany deleted that little gem because it’s just a wee bit too elitist and entitlement-hungry ???

Don’t you love how she qualifies the term “learning disabled” with ‘GIFTED’….as if all the other unwashed learning disabled kids are nothing but garbage…..but her Little Darling is GIFTED !!!!

What are you doing putting passages about incest up on your website, you pervert, and that Camille Paglia book? What kind of monster are you anyway? What do you do to those cats when nobody is looking?

Are you, in reality, trying to gather and maximize sympathy for the Kozinskis? Because that is the effect of your personal, vitriolic, irrelevant attacks. Believe me, if people are put in the position of having to choose sides, they will choose the side you are not on. Me first.

Maxine, I think we both agree that you’re a freak, and that your personal interest in the lives of strangers – including your references to the children of strangers – only provides further confirmation of just what a disturbed and disgusting freak you are.

So were in agreement on that.

That being said, we now have an explanation of why Tiffany changed her website to remove some family references. It’s because she recently became aware of the existence of repulsive freaks such as the one commenting under the name Maxine Weiss.

You’re engaging in conduct right now – e.g., writing letters and signing them Love, Maxine – which is described in textbooks dealing with various personality disorders. Hervey Cleckley used to write about people such as you.

I find it very ironic, that Ms. Tiffany complains about others filing frivolous lawsuits, when that’s exactly what her professional business consists of. She goes around suing government-public school districts, including a top-performing one, — while her huband earns his living, and their million dollar home, off the public payroll.

Forget the family porn hobby. —-This is a husband and wife who’ve spent their whole entire work lives living off the public dole, but of course, I’m mean for noticing that.

Isn’t the government the largest employer in the country? Do you criticize everybody who works for the government? You may, who knows? The ACLU makes its living off of suing school districts and towns. How do you feel about them? I hate those fuckers.

Maxine – if you cannot distinguish between legitimate functions of government and welfare, then you need more help than we can give you on this blog.

I suppose, under your rationale, a general in the Marines is “living on the government dole.” Ditto to Senators Boxer and Feinstein.

Obviously, you’re nearly illiterate – ignorant of everything from the Orestia to Ayn Rand. A judiciary ensures that people solve their problems in a civilised manner – not by force, but by logic and righteousness. Without a judiciary, an individual is the ruled subject of any stronger person or any government official who chooses to run roughshod over him.

Without an independent judiciary – if Cyrus Sanai were to have his way – we would not live in America, but a third-world country of kangaroo courts, bribes, and injustice.

To say that a judge lives off the government dole is ridiculous; if your tax dollars do not go to a judiciary, to what legitimate end may they be put? How else to ensure that three hundred million people spend their time building nanorobots, skyscrapers, and the greatest universities in the world instead of killing, maiming, and swindling each other?

I’ve mentioned before that Judge Kozinski could, today, leave his judge-ship and earn roughly ten times his current salary in the private sector. I’ve also noticed that you’ve ignored that point, perhaps because you would not like to admit that he is among the most talented and able attorneys in America – one who gives a far greater benefit to the public through his judicial service than he reaps in salary.

A final thought, to all: When Michael Luttig left the bench to become general counsel at Boeing, a fair number of people in the legal field questioned whether we can continue to populate the judiciary with the best attorneys. This disaster – and the cruelty heaped upon the Kozinskis by the public – will only worsen the situation.

bridget is right. a judge’s salary is chickenfeed to what a senior partner in a tony firm makes. i’m not gonna fight these other guys for her though, if she’s worthy of the quest, she can find her way to my doorstep in oregon.

i knew if i pushed on maxine’s buttons just a couple of times, i’d hit something, omg, it’s a big oil gusher of anti-semitism. hey maxine, i have connections in (authentic) west los angeles, i can set you up with mel gibson!

What offended me the most was the photo of a catholic priest engaged in a (suggestively) lewd act with a small child. I don’t think that subject is funny, and there is no statistical difference between that type of abuse in the Catholic Church, in Jewish congregations, protestant, etc. I prefer more religious tolerance.

As to the other sexually related photos — not my cup of tea — but I can see why his teenage sons might have posted them. Its a non issue involving their home computer that was not intended to be accessed by the public.

Lastly, we have to put all this into context. Judge Kozinski makes personal visits to prisoners on death row (which shows his strong moral character), he writes brilliant opinions — even one where he ruled against me on a beloved 11th Amendment states rights issue. He’s tough as nails, but as fair as they come. I wish the times had provide more of this type of background to put the issue into better context.

there is no statistical difference between that type of abuse in the catholic church, in jewish congregations, protestant, etc….

bullshit. jewish rabbis and protestant pastors are allowed to have wives, so these folks are predominantly normal heterosexuals who experienced some sort of calling. catholic priests are not allowed to have wives, so you get some kinky customers in there who do not miss the joys of heterosexual matrimony. that’s why you never hear about jewish, protestant, etc. organizations filing bankruptcy claims under the weight of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of liability for sexually abusing young boys. i think jokes about the sacrament of sodomy are hilarious.

Let me correct that abomination of a sentence: I think that some people can’t tell the difference between a real live actual child and a stuffed doll. Nonetheless, they have a constitutional right to reproduce themselves….

They’re not well-liked among their neighbors in Palos Verdes. The neighbors think she’s self-serving and an enabler; while he’s an arrogant, smug dilettante.

However, it’s always comforting to know his law-school buddies, and the coterie of fellow cronies in the judiciary—that he’s chosen for this “Investigative Panel”…… think he’s such a swell guy, clearly.

Are you guessing about what the Kozinski’s neighbors think of them, have you heard rumors, or is your information based on personal knowledge? The first two sources are not helpful but personal knowledge would be relevant. My guess is your information is not based on personal knowledge.

Is that issue the change in morality of society? When Thomas Jefferson penned the constitution, his belief was that most were moral, and the laws should address the same..

To be shunned by the members of your society was at that time. a punishment that most respected. There was a need for law & punishment(public flogging in the square stockade) to effectively deal with those who lacked morals, and respect of others properties.

In this day and age of Freeriding, society loses.

First I am not deluded in belief that morals equals manners or the vise versa. Nor do I believe that ones own morals should be the rule of others. My family http://studio413.blogspot.com were staunch abolitionist at the dawn of this great country. They had different ideas about many issues confronting society then, yet they only sought to empress their ideas around freedoms due all of man, certainly not implicating that all should live as they did, in all ways.

That being said , I believe as they did. Yet as Mr. Jefferson recognized you can’t legislate your own morals, and that morals are not in fact just ones own, but are those that the benefit the greater society.

But I feel that there is a growing disrespect for people and their properties, and the idealism that if you don’t (opt-out of public domain) lock it away, that society at large is welcome to take as they please.

I believe in the Public Domain, and in fair use….I don’t believe in stretching those in ways that congress never intended, in either direction.

For those whom advocate a free everything on the net…this may just be the issue that brings Judicial Notice, to why it’s wrong for society.

I am just sorry that the Honorable Judge Kozinski, especially his wife, and family have to become victims, of something so patently wrong with society. Hope that one day you never find yourself in front of the Public, having to attend to such.

The wife of Alex Kozinski makes a very spirited defense of the Judge. She is upset aboutwhat she brands as 1/2 truths, and distortions by the L A Times.
I hope she can get the Times to correct any 1/2 truths, and distortions if there are any, indeed.
She attacks a litigant who was before the Court, just some pest to her.
However, in the 9th Circuit, there is something very foul, much worst than the cow caper or the horse caper in the flesh: Do a google on Harold Fine Cheveron Trott.
It was a 1995 case in which Mr Fine was ridiculed by 9th Circuit Judges using another name for him. He was then subjected to hate, by judges using their imigination, and Alex joined in.
It looked like a sham to run favors for Chevron Oil Corporation.
Will those 1/200 lies, (not truths) be corrected by the 9th Circuit—NO.
I appreciate, a Judge is a human being, every day in the 24 hours , he is not wearing his black robes, he cools out on his beach pad, or jokes, or paint balls( Where was Alex in Nam on the front lines, when others were in real deal stuff–he was special, huh)
Kozinski did not write to take offense when Stephen Trott ex high DOJ official(Mr POWER of POWER) was using the 9th Circuit to promote hate— he tells oters to “imagine”, as he had no use for facts.
And, Alex fell for it, raw abusive power, gone mad.
Did any know Harold Fine was a CPA.. the 9th Circuit did not care, or deal with that truth.
Did any know Cheveron was a powerful corportion running some fishy stuff at a big Petroleum Reserve(USA property) ?
Instead, Alex strips Harold Fine of his very being as who he really was.
I find the defense fo Alex by his wife most compelling.
A real shame some one like her never stood up for the truth, when it came to Harold Fine in the case
U S ex Rel Fine v Chevron, he was not: Humpty Dumpty, The Sheriff of Naughtingham, an Inspector in a Peter Sellers Pink Panther Movie.
He was a real human being, and he was made the target of hate and ridiculde, and Alex joined in on the gang bang with Steph Trott. Was something collusive going on ?
It is one of those cases that may not drift into the vapoers of the past, like some judges on the 9th Circuit may hope, would be buried in the passage of time.

I am a Catholic, I have two uncles who were priests(Ireland, and there were good priests.
A small % of priests were into the abuse thing.
If any were, and abused a child, they should be in jail.
I saw what was described as the oral sex performed on a priest photo, in all the rumors spread in great wild fire all over the WWW. It showed 4 people, the priest, the kid, and two others standing side by side.
Many Catholics were shocked to be raped by the billions paid out by the Catholic Church.
Think of all the good it could have done to help people, in need.
It caused some to give up their religion.
It was horrific. I am a life long Catholic, just like Tim Russert.
However, how many have seen the subject photo, and not drawn conclusions, without doing so,
I am not even sure the photo is smut, or even porn, it is more like paradoy.
And, it showed no skin, one had to use their imigination to draw some inference.
repeat, imigination, seeminly based on social backdrops which colored that.
It appeared to be social satire.
I don’t like Alex Kozinki’s politics, don’t like how he got his judgeship, however, I am not willing to lynch him, be a party to that lynching party, and to even draw the conclusion that the subject photo is smut or porn.
Yet, some jumping to a conclusion have spread that impression.
What if some Catholics found the photo amusing, as social satire ?
Am I off the charts, in being candid, or missing something.
And, I am not for priests abusing anyone.
However, the photo has been described by some who have taken great liberty in the words they used to spread rumors, and more.
Please step back, and be objective before any jump to some hasty conclusions based on wild fire WWW rumors.
Just because Mr SANAI CALLS SOMETHING SMUT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
I seriously doubt Mr Sanai is a great denfender of the Catholic Church, for all I know he is more arm in arm with Mister Hagee

My name is Fima and I live in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
I came to US as political refugee on human rights violations in former USSR
I am russian jew, and I got a lot of discrimination in USSR
My parents are Holocaust survivors.
But I got the worst thing in USA, never possible in communist country.
I was set up with my computer, convicted as a s..x offender for computer p..rn.
Now I do not have job and can hardly survive under police database
supervision, named s..x offender registration. Nobody want to hire me,
I think because of police database.
And I have family. Who cares? Dirty polititians are playing their
dirty games for more power.
I would like to send you some links to publications about my criminal
case. I was forced to confess to the
possession of internet digital pictures of p..rn in deleted clusters
of my computer hard drive. My browser was hijacked while I was
browsing the web. I was redirected to illegal sites against my will.
Some illegal pictures were found on my hard drive, recovering in
unallocated clusters, without dates of file creation/download.

I do not know how courts can widely press these charges on people to
convict them, while the whole Internet is a mess.
You can find all links to publications about my case here

Mrs Marcy Tiffany and Alex sound like nice people. After a brief read on Alex’s legal history he also sounds like an amazing judge. Its a pity that his reputation has been tarnished and that people still find his actions to be objectionable.